/ 


/ 


LmA 


'V^ 


K 


y<si—_^cu-  ^-y. 


TJHI7BESIT7] 


Drawn  from,  life  &  Engra-red  by  J.  B.  Longa* 


Q U^  fo&£ 


^*-> 


*&«r    /irssC,    &*£- 


SPEECHES 


AND 


FORENSIC    ARGUMENTS 


BY    DANIEL    WEBSTER 


VOL.     I 


EIGHTH    EDITION. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED    BY    TAPPAiN    &   DENNET 


1844. 


f^>  OF  THE     X 

'UJ^IVEESITT, 


DISTRICT  OF   MASSACHUSETTS,  to  w.t  : 

District  Clerk's  Office. 
Be  it  remembered,  that  on  the  twenty-ninth  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1830,  in  the  fifty-fifth 
year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Perkins  and  Marvin 
of  the  said  district,  have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  they 
claim  as  Proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit: 

"  Speeches  and  Forensic  Arguments.     By  Daniel  Webster." 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "  An  Act  for  tlie 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  B>>oks,  to  the  Au- 
thors and  Proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned :"  and  also  to  an 
Act  entitled  "  An  Act  supplementary  to  an  Act,  entitled,  an  Act  for  tlie  encouragement  of 
learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors 
of  such  copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the 
arts  of  designing,  engraving  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints  " 

JNO.  W.DAVIS,  \  Cler*  of  the  District 
*  I     of  Massachusetts. 


m 


Li- 


PREFACE 


The  present  generation  of  American  citizens  seems  to  have 
a  part  to  act  scarcely  less  remarkable  than  the  preceding. 
Our  immediate  ancestors  are,  indeed,  singularly  distinguished  as 
the  founders  of  our  Free  Institutions;  but  we  are  ourselves 
almost  as  critically,  and,  for  usefulness  at  least,  as  fortunately 
situated.  In  the  view  of  the  sagacious  observer,  we  are  ob- 
jects of  as  profound  and  fearful  interest  as  were  our  Fathers. 
The  ultimate  success  of  our  political  system  depends,  perhaps, 
nearly  as  much  on  the  first  generation  that  grows  up  under 
them,  as  on  that  by  which  they  were  framed  and  organized. 

It  is  our  part  not  only  to  exhibit  to  the  world  a  practical 
illustration  of  the  influence  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  but  to 
define  and  determine  its  construction ;  to  apply  its  provisions 
to  unforeseen  exigences,  and  to  cases  contemplated  by  its 
framers,  as  they  may  arise  under  unexpected  circumstances 
and  new  modifications;  to  give,  in  short,  its  influence  to  the 
public  sentiment,  on  questions  of  deep  and  permanent  interest; 
and  thus,  in  all  probability,  to  establish  in  the  community, 
habits  of  thinking  and  of  action,  which  will  affect  the  public 
concerns  as  long  as  the  Union  shall  exist.  It  is  not  altogether 
in  paper  constitutions,  however  skilfully  devised  or  precisely 
expressed,  to   control    the   administration;  the   habits    of  the 


IV  PREFACE. 

national  mind,  the  course  of  legislative  policy  and  judicial 
decision,  the  customs  of  the  government,  will  in  practice  more 
or  less  affect  the  received  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  and  so 
become  a  part  of  the  public  law. 

On  the  public  men  of  this  age,  therefore,  rests  a  responsi- 
bility of  no  ordinary  kind.  To  the  friends  of  rational  liberty 
and  popular  happiness  they  cannot  be  regarded  but  as  objects 
of  deep  and  singular  interest.  Their  course  is  all  important  to 
the  State.  The  productions  of  such  of  them  as  incorporate 
their  opinions  and  spirit,  with  the  national  literature  and  national 
politics,  may  be  among  the  richest  and  best  gifts  of  Provi- 
dence to  the  land.  The  results  of  great  powers  and  large 
experience  in  public  affairs,  committed  to  writing  in  any  country 
and  any  age,  can  never  be  disregarded  or  neglected;  but  the 
lessons  of  civil  and  political  wisdom,  and  the  tone  of  social 
and  patriotic  feeling,  expressed  in  the  works  of  our  own  dis- 
tinguished Statesmen  of  the  present  generation,  are  more 
emphatically  important.  They  may  be  regarded  strictly 
"  above  all  price,"  the  most  precious  and  most  sacred  of  the 
national  treasures;  as  they  will  probably  constitute  the  nearest 
approximation  to  a  conservative  principle  in  our  political  insti- 
tutions, which  our  state  of  society  admits. 

Of  this  character,  in  an  eminent  degree,  the  publishers  of 
this  volume  look  upon  the  works  of  Mr.  Webster;  and  having 
obtained  his  consent  to  their  undertaking,  they  now  present 
it  to  the  community,  in  strong  confidence  that  they  are  doing 
important  service  to  the  country. 

Among  individuals  who  have  grown  into  distinction  altogeth- 
er under  the  existing  Federal  Government,  it  is  not  invidious  to 
say,  that  few  or  none  are  more  conspicuous.  Endowed  by 
nature  with  extraordinary  powers,  he  has  cultivated  them  in  a 


PREFACE.  y 

manner  and  to  an  extent,  most  propitious  for  his  own  fame,  and 
for  the  honor  and  benefit  of  his  country;  presenting  at  once  a 
splendid  model  of  the  character  developed  under  our  republi- 
can institutions,  and  an  illustrious  instance  of  the  power  of 
character,  thus  developed,  to  preserve  and  improve  those  insti- 
tutions. 

To  an  extent  of  practice  and  a  degree  of  success  in  the  pro- 
fession of  the  Law,  rarely  equalled  in  any  age  or  country;  to 
experience  in  public  affairs  as  great  as  his  years  allow;  to  sin- 
gular powers  of  conception,  habits  of  discrimination,  and  the 
faculty  of  popular  reasoning  such  as  renders  his  eloquence  pe- 
culiar, and  gives  it  in  a  great  degree  a  character  of  its  own  ;  to 
large  and  liberal  views  of  things  ;  to  a  surprising  familiarity  with 
the  great  features  of  our  own  domestic  and  foreign  policy  since 
the  foundation  of  the  government,  and  with  the  course  of  other 
governments, — to  all  these  traits  of  Mr.  Webster's  character 
and  history,  we  are,  by  a  coincidence  as  uncommon  as  it  is 
admirable,  permitted  to  add  the  most  pure  and  honorable  prin- 
ciple, all  the  domestic  and  social  virtues,  containing  in  them- 
selves the  only  certain  pledges  of  public  good  faith  and  love  of 
country,  and  consecrating  the  man  to  the  affections  of  his  age 
and  of  posterity. 

We  look  upon  it  as  eminently  fortunate,  for  the  country  and 
for  mankind,  that  such  a  man  has  not  merely  left  the  impress 
of  his  mind  on  the  professional  and  official  transactions  in  which 
he  has  been  engaged,  but  has  already  found  occasion  to  secure 
a  perpetual  memorial  of  many  of  his  opinions  upon  our  history, 
institutions,  and  principal  objects  of  legislation  and  jurisprudence; 
as  well  as  a  monument  of  his  patriotic  and  humane  sentiments, 
in  the  literature  of  his  country.  Of  other  individuals  of  splendid 
genius,  and  powerful  influence  in  their  day,  death  has  left  an  im- 
palpable shadow  only,  with  posterity.  Mr.  Webster,  should  he 


VI  PREFACE. 

be  cut  off  without  another  opportunity  of  exerting  his  powers  for 
the  benefit  of  the  public  or  his  friends,  cannot  thus  pass  from  the 
memory  of  men.  He  would  still  be  to  be  seen,  in  the  true 
features  of  his  character,  in  those  productions  of  his  mind, 
which  are  already  before  the  public. 

In  conclusion  we  may  be  permitted  to  add,  that  several  of 
the  speeches  and  addresses  contained  in  this  volume,  possessing 
a  character  of  more  permanent  and  general  interest,  have  been 
translated  and  published  in  most  of  the  languages  of  Europe. 
And  we  are  not  without  authority  for  saying,  that  they  have 
been  regarded,  by  men  of  enlightened  judgments  and  cultivated 
taste,  as  fine  examples  of  forensic  and  popular  eloquence.  In 
the  language  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  statesmen  of  England, 
some  of  these  speeches  have  been  read  in  that  country,  with 
"no  less  admiration  of  their  eloquence,  than  satisfaction  in  the 
soundness  and  ability  of  their  general  views."  This  tribute, 
coming  as  it  does  from  those  who  are  not  apt  to  over-estimate 
the  intellectual  power  or  literary  taste  of  our  country,  may  De 
regarded  by  us,  with  an  honest  pride,  as  evidence  of  uncommor 
merit.  As  such,  we  offer  this  volume  of  Mr.  Webster's 
speeches  to  our  countrymen,  in  full  confidence  that  they  will 
sustain  the  high  reputation  they  have  acquired  for  political 
wisdom  and  true  eloquence. 


CONTENTS. 


Discourse  delivered  at  Plymouth,  in  Commemoration  of  the  first  Settlement 

of  New  England.— Dec.  22,  1820 25 

Address  delivered  at  the  laying  of  the  Corner  Stone  of  the  Bunker  Hill  Monu- 
ment.—June  17,  1825 07 

Discourse  in  Commemoration  of  the  Lives  and  Services  of  John  Adams  and 

Thomas  Jefferson,  delivered  in  Faneuil  Hall,  Boston. — Aug.  2, 1826.      .       71 

Speech  delivered  at  a  Meeting  of  Citizens  of  Boston,  held  in  Faneuil  Hall  on 
the  evening  of  April  3, 1825,  preparatory  to  the  General  Election  in  Mas- 
sachusetts  ^7 

Speech  in  Faneuil  Hall,  on  Thursday,  June  5th,  1828,  at  a  public  dinner  given 

him  by  the  Citizens  of  Boston,  as  a  mark  of  respect  for  his  public  services.     102 

Argument  in  the  Case,  the  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  College  vs.  William  H. 

Woodward,  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  on  the  10th 

day  of  March,  1818 HO 

Argument  in  the  Impeachment  of  James  Prescott,  before  the  Senate  of 

Massachusetts. — 1821. 138 

Argument  in  the  Case  of  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 

United  States,  February  Term,  1824 170 

Argument  in  the  Case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 

United  States,  January  Term,  1827 185 

Remarks  in  the  Convention  of  Delegates  chosen  to  revise  the  Constitution  of 

Massachusetts,  upon  the  resolution  relative  to  Oaths  of  Office.  1821.     .     .     197 

Remarks  in  the  Convention,  upon  the  Resolution  to  divide  the  Common- 
wealth into  Districts  for  the  choice  of  Senators  according  to  population.         200 

Remarks  in  the  Convention  upon  a  Resolution  to  alter  the  Constitution,  so 
that  Judicial  Officers  shall  be  removable  by  the  Governor  and  Council  up- 
on the  address  of  two  thirds  (instead  of  a  majority)  of  each  branch  of  the 
Legislature,  and  also  that  the  Legislature  shall  have  power  to  create  a 
Supreme  Court  of  Equity  and  a  Court  of  Appeals.  .         .         .         .     217 

Speech  on  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States,  Jan.  2,1815 222 


FHi  CONTENTS. 

Speech  on  a  Resolution  relative  to  the  more  effectual  collection  of  the  public  /     / 

Revenue,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States.  tx^ 

1816 232 

Speech  on  the  Greek  Revolution,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives 

ofthe  United  States,  Jan.  19,  1823.        .  241 

Speech  upon  the  Tariff;  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 

United  States,  April,  1824 265 

Speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  Tariff  Bill.— May  9, 1828.     307 

Speech  upon  the  Panama  Mission;  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives 

ofthe  United  States.— April,  1826 322 

Speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  Bill  for  the  relief  of  the 

surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. — April  25,  1828 351 

Speeches  in  the  Senate  ofthe  United  States,  on  the  Resolution  of  Mr.  Foote 

respecting  the  sale,  &c.  of  Public  Lands. — Jan.  1830 358 

Remarks  in  the  Senate  ofthe  United  States,  on  the  application  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  Breakwater  at  Nantucket. — 1828.     ......     433 

Introductory  Lecture,  read  to  the  Boston  Mechanics'  Institution,  at  the 

opening  of  the  Course  of  Lectures. — Nov.  12,  1828 439 

Argument  on  the  Trial  of  John  F.  Knapp,  for  the  Murder  of  Joseph  White, 
Esq.  of  Salem,  in  the  county  of  Essex,  Massachusetts;  on  the  night  of  the 
6th  of  April,  1830 450 

Remarks  in  the  House  of  Representatives  ofthe  United  States,  on  the  Bill  to 

amend  the  Judiciary  System. — Jan.  4,  1826. 490 

MISCELLANIES. 

Examination  ofthe  remarks  in  the  Quarterly  Review  on  the  Laws  of  Cred- 
itor and  Debtor  in  the  United  States.     (1820.) 510 

Letter  of  Mr.  Webster,  addressed  to  Rev.  Louis  Dwight,  Secretary  of  the 
Prison  Discipline  Society,  on  the  subject  of  Imprisonment  for  Debt. — May 
2,  1830 519 


DISCOURSE 


DELIVERED  AT    PLYMOUTH,    IN    COMMEMORATION   OF  THE    FIRST 
SETTLEMENT   OF   NEW  ENGLAND.    DEC.  22, 1820. 


Let  us  rejoice  that  we  behold  this  day.  Let  us  be  thankful  that 
we  have  lived  to  see  the  bright  and  happy  breaking  of  the  auspicious 
morn,  which  commences  the  third  century  of  the  history  of  New 
England.  Auspicious  indeed;  bringing  a  happiness  beyond  the 
common  allotment  of  Providence  to  men;  full  of  present  joy,  and 
gilding  with  bright  beams  the  prospect  of  futurity,  is  the  dawn  that 
awakens  us  to  the  commemoration  of  the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims. 

Living  at  an  epoch  which  naturally  marks  the  progress  of  the  his- 
tory of  our  native  land,  we  have  come  hither  to  celebrate  the  great 
event  with  which  that  history  commenced.  Forever  honored  be 
this,  the  place  of  our  fathers'  refuge  !  Forever  remembered  the 
day  which  saw  them,  weary  and  distressed,  broken  in  everything 
but  spirit,  poor  in  all  but  faith  and  courage,  at  last  secure  from  the 
dangers  of  wintry  seas,  and  impressing  this  shore  with  the  first  foot- 
steps of  civilized  man  !  9 

It  is  a  noble  faculty  of  our  nature  which  enables  us  to  connect 
our  thoughts,  our  sympathies,  and  our  happiness,  with  what  is  dis- 
tant, in  place  or  time;  and,  looking  before  and  after,  to  hold  com- 
munion at  once  with  our  ancestors  and  our  posterity.  Human  and 
mortal  although  we  are,  we  are  nevertheless  not  mere  insulated  be- 
ings, without  relation  to  the  past  or  the  future.  Neither  the  point 
of  time,  nor  the  spot  of  earth,  in  which  we  physically  live,  bounds 
our  rational  and  intellectual  enjoyments.  We  live  in  the  past  by  a 
knowledge  of  its  history;  and  in  the  future  by  hope  and  anticipa- 
tion. By  ascending  to  an  association  with  our  ancestors;  by  con- 
templating their  example  and  studying  their  character;  by  partaking 
their  sentiments,  and  imbibing  their  spirit;  by  accompanying  them 
in  their  toils,  by  sympathizing  in  their  sufferings,  and  rejoicing  in 
their  successes  and  their  triumphs,  we  mingle  our  own  existence 
with  theirs,  and  seem  to  belong  to  their  age.  We  become  their  con- 
temporaries, live  the  lives  which  they  lived,  endure  what  they  en- 
dured, and  partake  in  the  rewards  which  they  enjoyed.  And  in  like 
manner,  by  running  along  the  line  of  future  time,  by  contemplating 
the  probable  fortunes  of  those  who  are  coming  after  us;  by  attempt- 
4  c 


26 

ing  something  which  may  promote  their  happiness,  and  leave  some 
not  dishonorable  memorial  of  ourselves  for  their  regard,  when  we 
shall  sleep  with  the  fathers,  we  protract  our  own  earthly  being,  and 
seem  to  crowd  whatever  is  future,  as  well  as  all  that  is  past,  into  the 
narrow  compass  of  our  earthly  existence.  As  it  is  not  a  vain  and 
false,  but  an  exalted  and  religious  imagination,  which  leads  us  to 
raise  our  thoughts  from  the  orb,  which,  amidst  this  universe  of 
worlds,  the  Creator  has  given  us  to  inhabit,  and  to  send  them  with 
something  of  the  feeling  which  nature  prompts,  and  teaches  to  be 
proper  among  children  of  the  same  Eternal  Parent,  to  the  contem- 
plation of  the  myriads  of  fellow  beings,  with  which  his  goodness 
has  peopled  the  infinite  of  space; — so  neither  is  it  false  or  vain  to 
consider  ourselves  as  interested  and  connected  with  our  whole  race, 
through  all  time;  allied  to  our  ancestors;  allied  to  our  posterity; 
closely  compacted  on  all  sides  with  others;  ourselves  being  but 
links  in  the  great  chain  of  being,  which  begins  with  the  origin  of 
our  race,  runs  onward  through  its  successive  generations,  binding 
together  the  past,  the  present,  and  the  future,  and  terminating  at 
last,  with  the  consummation  of  all  things  earthly,  at  the  throne  of 
God. 

There  may  be,  and  there  often  is,  indeed,  a  regard  for  ancestry, 
which  nourishes  only  a  weak  pride;  as  there  is  also  a  care  for  pos- 
terity, which  only  disguises  an  habitual  avarice,  or  hides  the  work- 
ings of  a  low  and  groveling  vanity.  But  there  is  also  a  moral  and 
philosophical  respect  for  our  ancestors,  which  elevates  the  character 
and  improves  the  heart.  Next  to  the  sense  of  religious  duty  and 
moral  feeling,  T  hardly  know  what  should  bear  with  stronger  obli- 
gation on  a  liberal  and  enlightened  mind,  than  a  consciousness  of 
alliance  with  excellence  which  is  departed;  and  a  consciousness, 
too,  that  in  its  acts  and  conduct,  and  even  in  its  sentiments  and 
thoughts,  it  may  be  actively  operating  on  the  happiness  of  those 
who  come  after  it.  Poetry  is  found  to  have  few  stronger  concep- 
tions, by  which  it  would  affect  or  overwhelm  the  mind,  than  those 
in  which  it  presents  the  moving  and  speaking  image  of  the  departed 
dead  to  the  senses  of  the  living.  This  belongs  to  poetry,  only  be- 
cause it  is  congenial  to  our  nature.  Poetry  is,  in  this  respect,  but 
the  handmaid  of  true  philosophy  and  morality;  it  deals  with  us  as 
human  beings,  naturally  reverencing  those  whose  visible  connexion 
with  this  state  of  existence  is  severed,  and  who  may  yet  exercise 
we  know  not  what  sympathy  with  ourselves; — and  when  it  carries 
us  forward,  also,  and  shows  us  the  long  continued  result  of  all  the 
good  we  do,  in  the  prosperity  of  those  who  follow  us,  till  it  bears  us 
from  ourselves,  and  absorbs  us  in  an  intense  interest  for  what  shall 
happen  to  the  generations  after  us,  it  speaks  only  in  the  language 
of  our  nature,  and  affects  us  with  sentiments  which  belong  to  us  as 
human  beings. 

Standing  in  this  relation  to  our  ancestors  and  our  posterity,  we 
are  assembled  on  this  memorable  spot,  to  perform  the  duties  which 
that  relation,  and  the  present  occasion,  impose  upon  us.  We  have 
come  to  this  Rock,  to  record  here  our  homage  for  our  Pilgrim  Fath- 
ers; our  sympathy  in  their  sufferings;  our  gratitude  for  their  la- 
bors;   our    admiration    of  their    virtues;   our   veneration    for  their 


27 

piety;  and  our  attachment  to  those  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  which  they  encountered  the  dangers  of  the  ocean,  the  storms 
of  heaven,  the  violence  of  savages,  disease,  exile,  and  famine,  to 
enjoy  and  to  establish. — And  we  would  leave  here,  also,  for  the 
generations  which  are  rising  up  rapidly  to  fill  our  places,  some 
proof,  that  we  have  endeavoured  to  transmit  the  great  inheritance 
unimpaired;  that  in  our  estimate  of  public  principles,  and  private 
virtue;  in  our  veneration  of  religion  and  piety;  in  our  devotion  to 
civil  and  religious  liberty;  in  our  regard  to  whatever  advances  hu- 
man knowledge,  or  improves  human  happiness,  we  are  not  altogether 
unworthy  of  our  origin. 

There  is  a  local  feeling,  connected  with  this  occasion,  too  strong 
to  be  resisted;  a  sort  of  genius  of  the  place,  which  inspires  and  awes  us. 
We  feel  that  we  are  on  the  spot,  where  the  first  scene  of  our  history 
was  laid;  where  the  hearths  and  altars  of  New  England  were  first 
placed;  where  Christianity,  and  civilisation,  and  letters  made  theii 
first  lodgement,  in  a  vast  extent  of  country,  covered  with  a  wilderness, 
and  peopled  by  roving  barbarians.  We  are  here,  at  the  season  of 
the  year  at  which  the  event  took  place.  The  imagination  irresistibly 
and  rapidly  draws  around  us  the  principal  features,  and  the  leading 
characters  in  the  original  scene.  We  cast  our  eyes  abroad  on  the 
ocean,  and  we  see  where  the  little  bark,  with  the  interesting  group 
upon  its  deck,  made  its  slow  progress  to  the  shore.  We  look  around 
us,  and  behold  the  hills  and  promontories,  where  the  anxious  eyes 
of  our  fathers  first  saw  the  places  of  habitation  and  of  rest.  We 
feel  the  cold  which  benumbed,  and  listen  to  the  winds  which  pierced 
them.  Beneath  us  is  the  Rock,  on  which  New  England  received 
the  feet  of  the  Pilgrims.  We  seem  even  to  behold  them,  as  they 
struggle  with  the  elements,  and,  with  toilsome  efforts,  gain  the 
shore.  We  listen  to  the  chiefs  in  council;  we  see  the  unexampled 
exhibition  of  female  fortitude  and  resignation;  we  hear  the  whisper- 
ings of  youthful  impatience,  and  we  see,  what  a  painter  of  our  own 
has  also  represented  by  his  pencil,  chilled  and  shivering  childhood, 
houseless,  but  for  a  mother's  arms,  couchless  but  for  a  mother's 
breast,  till  our  own  blood  almost  freezes.  The  mild  dignity  of 
Carver  and  of  Bradford;  the  decisive  and  soldierlike  air  and 
manner  of  Standisii;  the  devout  Brewster;  the  enterprising  Al- 
lerton;  the  general  firmness  and  thoughtfulness  of  the  whole  band; 
their  conscious  joy  for  dangers  escaped;  their  deep  solicitude  about 
dangers  to  come;  their  trust  in  Heaven;  their  high  religious  faith, 
full  of  confidence  and  anticipation: — all  of  these  seem  to  belong  to 
this  place,  and  to  be  present  upon  this  occasion,  to  fill  us  with  rev- 
erence and  admiration. 

The  settlement  of  New  England  by  the  colony  which  landed  here 
on  the  twenty-second  of  December,  sixteen  hundred  and  twenty, 
although  not  the  first  European  establishment  in  what  now  consti- 
tutes the  United  States,  was  yet  so  peculiar  in  its  causes  and  char- 
acter, and  has  been  followed  and  must  still  be  followed,  by  such 
consequences,  as  to  give  it  a  high  claim  to  lasting  commemoration. 
On  these  causes  and  consequences,  more  than  on  its  immediately  at- 
tendant circumstances,  its  importance  as  an  historical  event  depends. 
Great  actions  and  striking  occurrences,  having  excited  a  temporary 


28 

admiration,  often  pass  away  and  are  forgotten,  because  they  leave 
no  lasting  results,  affecting  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  commu- 
nities. Such  is  frequently  the  fortune  of  the  most  brilliant  military 
achievements.  Of  the  ten  thousand  battles  which  have  been  fought; 
of  all  the  fields  fertilized  with  carnage;  of  the  banners  which  have 
been  bathed  in  blood;  of  the  warriors  who  have  hoped  that  they  had 
risen  from  the  field  of  conquest  to  a  glory  as  bright  and  as  durable 
as  the  stars,  how  few  that  continue  long  to  interest  mankind !  The 
victory  of  yesterday  is  reversed  by  the  defeat  of  to-day;  the  star  of 
military  glory,  rising  like  a  meteor,  like  a  meteor  has  fallen;  disgrace 
and  disaster  hang  on  the  heels  of  conquest  and  renown;  victor  and 
vanquished  presently  pass  away  to  oblivion,  and  the  world  goes 
on  in  its  course,  with  the  loss  only  of  so  many  lives  and  so  much 
treasure. 

But  if  this  be  frequently,  or  generally,  the  fortune  of  military 
achievements,  it  is  not  always  so.  There  are  enterprises,  military 
as  well  as  civil,  which  sometimes  check  the  current  of  events,  give 
a  new  turn  to  human  affairs,  and  transmit  their  consequences  through 
ages.  We  see  their  importance  in  their  results,  and  call  them  great, 
because  great  things  follow.  There  have  been  battles  which  have 
fixed  the  fate  of  nations.  These  come  down  to  us  in  history  with  a 
solid  and  permanent  interest,  not  created  by  a  display  of  glittering 
armor,  the  rush  of  adverse  battalions,  the  sinking  and  rising  of  pen- 
nons, the  flight,  the  pursuit,  and  the  victory;  but  by  their  effect  in 
advancing  or  retarding  human  knowledge,  in  overthrowing  or  estab- 
lishing despotism,  in  extending  or  destroying  human  happiness. 
When  the  traveller  pauses  on  the  plain  of  Marathon,  what  are  the 
emotions  which  most  strongly  agitate  his  breast?  What  is  that  glo- 
rious recollection,  which  thrills  through  his  frame,  and  suffuses  his 
eyes? — Not,  I  imagine,  that  Grecian  skill  and  Grecian  valor  were 
here  most  signally  displayed;  but  that  Greece  herself  was  here 
saved.  It  is,  because  to  this  spot,  and  to  the  event  which  has  render- 
ed it  immortal,  he  refers  all  the  succeeding  glories  of  the  republic. 
It  is  because  if  that  day  had  gone  otherwise,  Greece  had  perished. 
It  is  because  he  perceives  that  her  philosophers,  and  orators,  her 
poets  and  painters,  her  sculptors  and  architects,  her  governments 
and  free  institutions,  point  backward  to  Marathon,  and  that  their  fu 
ture  existence  seems  to  have  been  suspended  on  the  contingency, 
whether  the  Persian  or  the  Grecian  banner  should  wave  victorious 
in  the  beams  of  that  day's  setting  sun.  And  as  his  imagination  kin- 
dles at  the  retrospect,  he  is  transported  back  to  the  interesting  mo- 
ment, he  counts  the  fearful  odds  of  the  contending  hosts,  his  inter- 
est for  the  result  overwhelms  him;  he  trembles,  as  if  it  were  still 
uncertain,  and  seems  to  doubt,  whether  he  may  consider  Socrates 
and  Plato,  Demosthenes,  Sophocles  and  Phidias,  as  secure,  yet,  to 
himself  and  to  the  world. 

"If  we  conquer,"  said  the  Athenian  commander  on  the  morning 
of  that  decisive  day, — "  If  we  conquer,  we  shall  make  Athens  the 
greatest  city  of  Greece."  A  prophecy,  how  well  fulfilled  ! — "  If 
God  prosper  us,"  might  have  been  the  more  appropriate  language 
of  our  Fathers,  when  they  landed  upon  this  Rock  ; — "  if  God  pros- 
per us,  we  shall  here  begin  a  work  which  shall  last  for  ages;  we 


29 

shall  plant  here  a  new  society,  in  the  principles  of  the  fullest  liberty, 
and  the  purest  religion:  we  shall  subdue  this  wilderness  which  is  be- 
fore us;  we  shall  fill  this  region  of  the  great  continent,  which  stretch- 
es almost  from  pole  to  pole,  with  civilisation  and  Christianity;  the 
temples  of  the  true  God  shall  rise,  where  now  ascends  the  smoke  of 
idolatrous  sacrifice;  fields  and  gardens,  the  flowers  of  summer,  and 
the  waving  and  golden  harvest  of  autumn,  shall  extend  over  a  thous- 
and hills,  and  stretch  along  a  thousand  valleys,  never  yet,  since  the 
creation,  reclaimed  to  the  use  of  civilized  man.  We  shall  whiten 
this  coast  with  the  canvass  of  a  prosperous  commerce;  we  shall  stud 
the  long  and  winding  shore  with  an  hundred  cities.  That  which  we 
sow  in  weakness  shall  be  raised  in  strength.  From  our  sincere  but 
houseless  worship,  there  shall  spring  splendid  temples  to  record  God's 
goodness;  from  the  simplicity  of  our  social  union,  there  shall  arise 
wise  and  politic  constitutions  of  government,  full  of  the  liberty 
which  we  ourselves  bring  and  breathe;  from  our  zeal  for  learning, 
institutions  shall  spring  which  shall  scatter  the  light  of  knowledge 
throughout  the  land,  and,  in  time,  paying  back  where  they  have  bor- 
rowed, shall  contribute  their  part  to  the  great  aggregate  of  human 
knowledge;  and  our  descendants, through  all  generations,  shall  look 
back  to  this  spot,  and  to  this  hour,  with  unabated  affection  and  re- 
gard." 

A  brief  remembrance  of  the  causes  which  led  to  the  settlement 
of  this  place;  some  account  of  the  peculiarities  and  characteristic 
qualities  of  that  settlement,  as  distinguished  from  other  instances  of 
'colonization;  a  short  notice  of  the  progress  of  New  England  in  the 
great  interests  of  society,  during  the  century  which  is  now  elapsed; 
with  a  few  observations  on  the  principles  upon  which  society  and 
government  are  established  in  this  country; — comprise  all  that  can 
be  attempted,  and  much  more  than  can  be  satisfactorily  performed 
on  the  present  occasion. 

Of  the  motives  which  influenced  the  first  settlers  to  a  voluntary 
exile,  induced  them  to  relinquish  their  native  country,  and  to  seek  an 
asylum  in  this  then  unexplored  wilderness,  the  first  and  principal, 
no  doubt  were  connected  with  Religion.  They  sought  to  enjoy  a 
higher  degree  of  religious  freedom,  and  what  they  esteemed  a  purer 
form  of  religious  worship,  than  was  allowed  to  their  choice,  or  pre- 
sented to  their  imitation,  in  the  old  world.  The  love  of  religious 
liberty  is  a  stronger  sentiment,  when  fully  excited,  than  an  attachment 
to  civil  or  political  freedom.  That  freedom  which  the  conscience 
demands,  and  which  men  feel  bound  by  their  hopes  of  salvation  to 
contend  for,  can  hardly  fail  to  be  attained.  Conscience,  in  the  cause 
of  Religion,  and  the  worship  of  the  Deity,  prepares  the  mind  to  act, 
and  to  suffer  beyond  almost  all  other  causes.  It  sometimes  gives  an 
impulse  so  irresistible,  that  no  fetters  of  power  or  of  opinion  can 
withstand  it.  History  instructs  us  that  this  love  of  religious  liberty, 
a  compound  sentiment  in  the  breast  of  man,  made  up  of  the  clearest 
sense  of  right,  and  the  highest  conviction  of  duty,  is  able  to  look  the 
sternest  despotism  in  the  face,  and  with  means  apparently  most  inad- 
equate, to  shake  principalities  and  powers.  There  is  a  boldness,  a 
spirit  of  daring,  in  religious  reformers,  not  to  be  measured  by  the 
general   rules  which  control  men's  purposes  and  actions.     If  the 

c* 


I 


\ 


30 

hand  of  power  be  laid  upon  it,  this  only  seems  to  augment  its  force 
and  its  elasticity,  and  to  cause  its  action  to  be  more  formidable  and 
terrible.  Human  invention  has  devised  nothing,  human  power  has 
compassed  nothing  that  can  forcibly  restrain  it,  when  it  breaks  forth 
Nothing  can  stop  it,  but  to  give  way  to  it;  nothing  can  check  it, 
but  indulgence.  It  loses  its  power  only  when  it  has  gained  its  ob- 
ject. The  principle  of  toleration,  to  which  the  world  has  come  so 
slowly,  is  at  once  the  most  just  and  the  most  wise  of  all  principles. 
Kven  when  religious  feeling  takes  a  character  of  extravagance  and 
/Enthusiasm,  and  seems  to  threaten  the  order  of  society,  and  shake 
^  the  columns  of  the  social  edifice,  its  principal  danger  is  in  its  re- 
X5jraint.  If  it  be  allowed  indulgence  and  expansion  like  the  elemental 
xfires  it  only  agitates  and  perhaps  purifies  the  atmosphere,  while  its 
\  efforts  to  throw  off  restraint  would  burst  the  world  asunder. 
•  It  is  certain,  that  although  many  of  them  were  Republicans  in 
principle,  we  have  no  evidence  that  our  New  England  ancestors 
would  have  emigrated,  as  they  did,  from  their  own  native  country, 
become  wanderers  in  Europe,  and  finally  undertaken  the  establish- 
ment of  a  colony  here,  merely  from  their  dislike  of  the  political  sys- 
/ terns  of  Europe.  They  fled  not  so  much  from  the  civil  government, 
as  from  the  Hierarchy,  and  the  laws  which  enforced  conformity  to 
the  Church  Establishment.  Mr.  Robinson  had  left  England  as  ear- 
ly as  sixteen  hundred  and  eight,  on  account  of  the  persecutions  for 
\  nonconformity,  and  had  retired  to  Holland.  He  left  England,  from 
no  disappointed  ambition  in  affairs  of  state,  from  no  regrets  at  the 
want  of  preferment  in  the  church,  nor  from  any  motive  of  distinc- 
tion, or  of  gain.  Uniformity  in  matters  of  religion  was  pressed 
with  such  extreme  rigor,  that  a  voluntary  exile  seemed  the  most  eli- 
gible mode  of  escaping  from  the  penalties  of  noncompliance.  The 
accession  of  Elizabeth  had,  it  is  true,  quenched  the  fires  of  Smith- 
field,  and  put  an  end  to  the  easy  acquisition  of  the  crown  of  martyr- 
dom. Her  long  reign  had  established  the  Reformation,  but  tolera- 
tion was  a  virtue  beyond  her  conception,  and  beyond  the  age.  She 
left  no  example  of  it  to  her  successor;  and  he  was  not  of  a  charac- 
ter which  rendered  it  probable  that  a  sentiment  either  so  wise  or  so 
liberal  should  originate  with  him.  At  the  present  period  it  seems 
incredible,  that  the  learned,  accomplished,  unassuming,  and  inoffen- 
sive Robinson  should  neither  be  tolerated  in  his  own  peaceable 
mode  of  worship  in  his  own  country,  nor  suffered  quietly  to  depart 
from  it.  Yet  such  was  the  fact.  He  left  his  country  by  stealth, 
that  he  might  elsewhere  enjoy  those  rights  which  ought  to  belong 
to  men  in  all  countries.  The  embarkation  of  the  Pilgrims  for  Hol- 
land is  deeply  interesting,  from  its  circumstances,  and  also  as  it 
marks  the  character  of  the  times,  independently  of  its  connexion 
with  names  now  incorporated  with  the  history  of  Empire.  The  em- 
barkation was  intended  to  be  in  the  night,  that  it  might  escape  the 
notice  of  the  officers  of  government.  Great  pains  had  been  taken 
to  secure  boats,  which  should  come  undiscovered  to  the  shore,  and 
receive  the  fugitives;  and  frequent  disappointments  had  been  expe- 
rienced in  this  respect.  At  length  the  appointed  time  came,  bring- 
ing with  it  unusual  severity  of  cold  and  rain.  An  unfrequented 
and  barren  heath,  on  the  shores  of  Lincolnshire,  was  the  selected 


31 

spot,  where  the  feet  of  the  Pilgrims  were  to  tread,  for  the  last  time, 
the  land  of  their  fathers. 

The  vessel  which  was  to  receive  them,  did  not  come  until  the  next 
day,  and  in  the  meantime  the  little  band  was  collected,  and  men 
and  women  and  children  and  baggage  were  crowded  together,  in 
melancholy  and  distressed  confusion.  The  sea  was  rough,  and  the 
women  and  children  already  sick,  from  their  passage  down  the  riv- 
er to  the  place  of  embarkation.  At.  length  the  wished  for  boat  si- 
lently and  fearfully  approaches  the  shore,  and  men  and  women  and 
children,  shaking  with  fear  and  with  cold,  as  many  as  the  small  ves- 
sel could  bear,  venture  off  on  a  dangerous  sea.  Immediately  the 
advance  of  horses  is  heard  from  behind,  armed  men  appear,  and 
those  not  yet  embarked  are  seized,  and  taken  into  custody.  In  the 
hurry  of  the  moment,  there  had  been  no  regard  to  the  keeping  to- 
gether of  families,  in  the  first  embarkation,  and  on  account  of  the 
appearance  of  the  horsemen,  the  boat  never  returned  for  the  resi- 
due. Those  who  had  got  away,  and  those  who  had  not,  were  in 
equal  distress.  A  storm,  of  great  violence,  and  long  duration,  arose 
at  sea,  which  not  only  protracted  the  voyage,  rendered  distressing 
by  the  want  of  all  those  accommodations  which  the  interruption  of 
the  embarkation  had  occasioned,  but  also  forced  the  vessel  out  of 
her  course,  and  menaced  immediate  shipwreck;  while  those  on  shore, 
when  they  were  dismissed  from  the  custody  of  the  officers  of  jus- 
tice, having  no  longer  homes  or  houses  to  retire  to,  and  their  friends 
and  protectors  being  already  gone,  became  objects  of  necessary 
charity,  as  well  as  of  deep  commiseration. 

As  this  scene  passes  before  us,  we  can  hardly  forbear  asking, 
whether  this  be  a  band  of  malefactors  and  felons  flying  from  justice  ? 
What  are  their  crimes,  that  they  hide  themselves  in  darkness? — To 
what  punishment  are  they  exposed,  that  to  avoid  it,  men,  and  wo- 
men, and  children,  thus  encounter  the  surf  of  the  North  Sea,  and 
the  terrors  of  a  night  storm?  What  induces  this  armed  pursuit, 
and  this  arrest  of  fugitives,  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes? — Truth  does 
not  allow  us  to  answer  these  inquiries,  in  a  manner  that  does  credit 
to  the  wisdom  or  the  justice  of  the  times.  This  was  not  the  flight 
of  guilt,  but  of  virtue.  It  was  an  humble  and  peaceable  religion, 
flying  from  causeless  oppression.  It  was  conscience,  attempting  to 
escape  from  the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  Stuarts.  It  was  Robinson, 
and  Brewster,  leading  off  their  little  band  from  their  native  soil,  at 
first  to  find  shelter  on  the  shores  of  the  neighbouring  continent,  but 
ultimately  to  come  hither;  and  having  surmounted  all  difficulties, 
and  braved  a  thousand  dangers,  to  find  here  a  place  of  refuge  and 
of  rest.  Thanks  be  to  God,  that  this  spot  was  honored  as  the  asy- 
lum of  religious  liberty.  May  its  standard,  reared  here,  remain 
forever! — May  it  rise  up  as  high  as  heaven,  till  its  banner  shall  fan 
the  air  of  both  continents,  and  wave  as  a  glorious  ensign  of  peace 
and  security  to  the  nations! 

The  peculiar  character,  condition,  and  circumstances  of  the  col- 
onies which  introduced  civilisation  and  an  English  race  into  New 
England,  afford  a  most  interesting  and  extensive  topic  of  discus- 
sion. On  these  much  of  our  subsequent  character  and  fortune  has 
depended.     Their  influence  has  essentially  affected  our  whole  his- 


32 

tory,  through  the  two  centuries  which  have  elapsed;  and  as  they 
have  become  intimately  connected  with  government,  laws,  and  pro- 
perty, as  well  as  with  our  opinions  on  the  subjects  of  religion  and 
civil  liberty,  that  influence  is  likely  to  continue  to  be  felt  through 
the  centuries  which  shall  succeed.  Emigration  from  one  region  to 
another,  and  the  emission  of  colonies  to  people  countries  more  or 
less  distant  from  the  residence  of  the  parent  stock,  are  common  in- 
cidents in  the  history  of  mankind;  but  it  has  not  often,  perhaps 
never  happened,  that  the  establishment  of  colonies  should  be  at- 
tempted, under  circumstances,  however  beset  with  present  difficul- 
ties and  dangers,  yet  so  favorable  to  ultimate  success,  and  so 
conducive  to  magnificent  results,  as  those  which  attended  the  first 
settlements  on  this  part  of  the  continent.  In  other  instances,  emi- 
gration has  proceeded  from  a  less  exalted  purpose,  in  a  period  of 
less  general  intelligence,  or  more  without  plan  and  by  accident;  or 
under  circumstances,  physical  and  moral,  less  favorable  to  the  ex- 
pectation of  laying  a  foundation  for  great  public  prosperity  and 
future  empire. 

A  great  resemblance  exists,  obviously,  between  all  the  English 
colonies,  established  within  the  present  limits  of  the  United  States; 
but  the  occasion  attracts  our  attention  more  immediately  to  those 
which  took  possession  of  New  England,  and  the  peculiarities  of 
these  furnish  a  strong  contrast  with  most  other  instances  of  coloni- 
zation. 

Among  the  ancient  nations,  the  Greeks,  no  doubt,  sent  forth  from 
their  territories  the  greatest  number  of  colonies.  So  numerous  in- 
deed were  they,  and  so  great  the  extent  of  space  over  which  they 
were  spread,  that  the  parent  country  fondly  and  naturally  persuaded 
herself,  that  by  means  of  them  she  had  laid  a  sure  foundation  for 
the  universal  civilisation  of  the  world.  These  establishments,  from 
obvious  causes,  were  most  numerous  in  places  most  contiguous; 
yet  they  were  found  on  the  coasts  of  France,  on  the  shores  of  the 
Euxine  Sea,  in  Africa,  and  even,  as  is  alleged,  on  the  borders  of  India. 
These  emigrations  appear  to  have  been  sometimes  voluntary  and 
sometimes  compulsory;  arising  from  the  spontaneous  enterprise  of  in- 
dividuals, or  the  order  and  regulation  of  government.  It  was  a  com- 
mon opinion  with  ancient  writers,  that  they  were  undertaken  in  reli- 
gious obedience  to  the  commands  of  oracles;  and  it  is  probable  that 
impressions  of  this  sort  might  have  had  more  or  less  influence;  but  it 
is  probable,  also,  that  on  these  occasions  the  oracles  did  not  speak 
a  language  dissonant  from  the  views  and  purposes  of  the  state. 

Political  science  among  the  Greeks  seems  never  to  have  extended 
to  the  comprehension  of  a  system,  which  should  be  adequate  to  the 
government  of  a  great  nation  upon  principles  of  liberty.  They 
were  accustomed  only  to  the  contemplation  of  small  republics,  and 
were  led  to  consider  an  augmented  population  as  incompatible  with 
free  institutions.  The  desire  of  a  remedy  for  this  supposed  evil,  and 
the  wish  to  establish  marts  for  trade,  led  the  governments  often  to 
undertake  the  establishment  of  colonies  as  an  affair  of  state  expedi- 
ency. Colonization  and  commerce,  indeed,  would  naturally  become 
objects  of  interest  to  an  ingenious  and  enterprising  people,  inhabit- 
ing a  territory  closely  circumscribed  in  its  limits,  and  in  no  small 


33 

part  mountainous  and  sterile;  while  the  islands  of  the  adjacent  seas, 
and  the  promontories  and  coasts  of  the  neighbouring  continents,  by 
their  mere  proximity,  strongly  solicited  the  excited  spirit  of  emigra- 
tion. Such  was  this  proximity,  in  many  instances,  that  the  new  set- 
tlements appeared  rather  to  be  the  mere  extension  of  population  over 
contiguous  territory,  than  the  establishment  of  distant  colonies.  In 
proportion  as  they  were  near  to  the  parent  state,  they  would  be  under 
its  authority,  and  partake  of  its  fortunes.  The  colony  at  Marseilles 
might  perceive  lightly,  or  not  at  all,  the  sway  of  Phocis;  while  the 
islands  in  the  Egean  Sea  could  hardly  attain  to  independence  of 
their  Athenian  origin.  Many  of  these  establishments  took  place  at 
an  early  age;  and  if  there  were  defects  in  the  governments  of  the 
parent  states,  the  colonists  did  not  possess  philosophy  or  experience 
sufficient  to  correct  such  evils  in  their  own  institutions,  even  if  they 
had  not  been,  by  other  causes,  deprived  of  the  power.  An  imme- 
diate necessity,  connected  with  the  support  of  life',  was  the  main  and 
direct  inducement  to  these  undertakings,  and  there  could  hardly  ex- 
ist more  than  the  hope  of  a  successful  imitation  of  institutions  with 
which  they  were  already  acquainted,  and  of  holding  an  equality  with 
their  neighbours,  in  the  course  of  improvement.  The  laws  and  cus- 
toms, both  political  and  municipal,  as  well  as  the  religious  worship 
of  the  parent  city,  were  transferred  to  the  colony;  and  the  parent 
city  herself,  with  all  such  of  her  colonies  as  were  not  too  far  remote 
for  frequent  intercourse,  and  common  sentiments,  would  appear  like 
a  family  of  cities,  more  or  less  dependent,  and  more  or  less  connect- 
ed. We  know  how  imperfect  this  system  was,  as  a  system  of  gen- 
eral politics,  and  what  scope  it  gave  to  those  mutual  dissentions  and 
conflicts  which  proved  so  fatal  to  Greece. 

But  it  is  more  pertinent  to  our  present  purpose  to  observe,  that 
nothing  existed  in  the  character  of  Grecian  emigrations,  or  in  the 
spirit  and  intelligence  of  the  emigrants,  likely  to  give  a  new  and  im- 
portant direction  to  human  affairs,  or  a  new  impulse  to  the  human 
mind.  Their  motives  were  not  high  enough,  their  views  were  not 
sufficiently  large  and  prospective.  They  went  not  forth,  like  our 
ancestors,  to  erect  systems  of  more  perfect  civil  liberty,  or  to  enjoy 
a  higher  degree  of  religious  freedom.  Above  all,  there  was  nothing 
in  the  religion  and  learning  of  the  age,  that  could  either  inspire  high 
purposes,  or  give  the  ability  to  execute  them.  Whatever  restraints 
on  civil  liberty,  or  whatever  abuses  in  religious  worship,  existed  at 
the  time  of  our  fathers'  emigration,  yet,  even  then,  all  was  light  in 
the  moral  and  mental  world,  in  comparison  with  its  condition  inmost 
periods  of  the  ancient  states.  The  settlement  of  a  new  continent, 
in  an  age  of  progressive  knowledge  and  improvement,  could  not  but 
do  more  than  merely  enlarge  the  natural  boundaries  of  the  habitable 
world.  It  could  not  but  do  much  more  even  than  extend  commerce 
and  increase  wealth  among  the  human  race.  We  see  how  this  event 
has  acted,  how  it  must  have  acted,  and  wonder  only  why  it  did  not 
act  sooner,  in  the  production  of  moral  effects,  on  the  state  of  human 
knowledge,  the  general  tone  of  human  sentiments,  and  the  prospects 
of  human  happiness.  It  gave  to  civilized  man  not  only  a  new  con- 
tinent to  be  inhabited  and  cultivated,  and  new  seas  to  be  explored; 
5 


34 

but  it  gave  him  also  a  new  range  for  his  thoughts,  new  objects  foi 
curiosity,  and  new  excitements  to  knowledge  and  improvement. 

Roman  colonization  resembled,  far  less  than  that  of  the  Greeks, 
the  original  settlements  of  this  country.  Power  and  dominion  were 
the  objects  of  Rome,  even  in  her  colonial  establishments.  Her  whole 
exterior  aspect  was  for  centuries  hostile  and  terrific.  She  grasped 
at  dominion,  from  India  to  Britain,  and  her  measures  of  colonization 
partook  of  the  character  of  her  general  system.  Her  policy  was 
military,  because  her  objects  were  power,  ascendency  and  subjuga- 
tion. •  Detachments  of  emigrants  from  Rome  incorporated  themselves 
with,  and  governed,  the  original  inhabitants  of  conquered  countries. 
She  sent  citizens  where  she  had  first  sent  soldiers;  her  law  followed 
her  sword.  Her  colonies  were  a  sort  of  military  establishment;  so 
many  advanced  posts  in  the  career  of  her  dominion.  A  governor 
from  Rome  ruled  the  new  colony  with  absolute  sway,  and  often  with 
unbounded  rapacity.  In  Sicily,  in  Gaul,  in  Spain,  and  in  Asia,  the 
power  of  Rome  prevailed,  not  nominally  only,  but  really  and  effect- 
ually. Those  who  immediately  exercised  it  were  Roman;  the  tone 
and  tendency  of  its  administration,  Roman.  Rome  herself  continu- 
ed to  be  the  heart  and  centre  of  the  great  system  which  she  had  es- 
tablished. Extortion  and  rapacity,  finding  a  wide  and  often  rich 
field  of  action  in  the  provinces,  looked  nevertheless  to  the  banks  of 
the  Tiber,  as  the  scene  in  which  their  illgotten  treasures  should  be 
displayed;  or  if  a  spirit  of  more  honest  acquisition  prevailed,  the  ob- 
ject, nevertheless,  was  ultimate  enjoyment  in  Rome  itself.  If  our 
own  history,  and  our  own  times  did  not  sufficiently  expose  the  inhe- 
rent and  incurable  evils  of  provincial  government,  we  might  see  them 
portrayed,  to  our  amazement,  in  the  desolated  and  ruined  provinces 
of  the  Roman  empire.  We  might  hear  them,  in  a  voice  that  terri- 
fies us,  in  those  strains  of  complaint  and  accusation,  which  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  provinces  poured  forth  in  the  Roman  Forum. — "  Quas 
res  luxuries  in  flagitiis,  crudelitas  in  suppliciisj  avaritia  in  rapinis,  su- 
perbia  in  contumeliis,  efficere  potuisset,  eas  omneis  sese  pertulisse." 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  Roman  Provinces  partook  of  the  for- 
tunes as  well  as  of  the  sentiments  and  general  character  of  the  seat 
of  empire.  They  lived  together  with  her,  they  flourished  with  her, 
and  fell  with  her.  The  branches  were  lopped  away  even  before  the 
vast  and  venerable  trunk  itself  fell  prostrate  to  the  earth.  Nothing 
had  proceeded  from  her,  which  could  support  itself,  and  bear  up  the 
name  of  its  origin,  when  her  own  sustaining  arm  should  be  enfeebled 
or  withdrawn.  It  was  not  given  to  Rome  to  see,  either  at  her  zenith, 
or  in  her  decline,  a  child  of  her  own,  distant  indeed,  and  independent 
of  her  control,  yet  speaking  her  language  and  inheriting  her  blood, 
springing  forward  to  a  competition  with  her  own  power,  and  a  com- 
parison with  her  own  great  renown.  She  saw  not  a  vast  region  of 
the  earth,  peopled  from  her  stock,  full  of  states  and  political  commu- 
nities, improving  upon  the  models  of  her  institutions,  and  breathing 
in  fuller  measure  the  spirit  which  she  had  breathed  in  the  best  periods 
of  her  existence;  enjoying  and  extending  her  arts  and  her  literature; 
rising  rapidly  from  political  childhood  to  manly  strength  and  independ- 
ence; her  offspring,  yet  now  her  equal;  unconnected  with  the  causes 
which  might  affect  the  duration  of  her  own  power  and  greatness;  of 


35 

common  origin,  but  not  linked  to  a  common  fate;  giving  ample  pledge, 
that  her  name  should  not  be  forgotten,  that  her  language  should  not 
cease  to  be  used  among  men;  that  whatsoever  she  had  done  for  hu- 
man knowledge  and  human  happiness,  should  be  treasured  up  and 
preserved;  that  the  record  of  her  existence,  and  her  achievements, 
should  not  be  obscured,  although,  in  the  inscrutable  purposes  or*" 
Providence,  it  might  be  her  destiny  to  fall  from  opulence  and  splen- 
dor; although  the  time  might  come,  when  darkness  should  settle  on 
all  her  hills;  when  foreign  or  domestic  violence  should  overturn  her 
altars  and  her  temples;  when  ignorance  and  despotism  should  fill 
the  places  where  Laws,  and  Arts,  and  Liberty  had  flourished;  when 
the  feet  of  barbarism  should  trample  on  the  tombs  of  her  consuls, 
and  the  walls  of  her  senate  house  and  forum  echo  only  to  the  voice 
of  savage  triumph.  She  saw  not  this  glorious  vision,  to  inspire  and 
fortify  her  against  the  possible  decay  or  downfall  of  her  power. 
Happy  are  they,  who  in  our  day  may  behold  it,  if  they  shall  contem- 
plate it  with  the  sentiments  which  it  ought  to  inspire  ! 

The  New  England  colonies  differ  quite  as  widely  from  the  Asi- 
atic establishments  of  the  modern  European  nations,  as  from  the 
models  of  the  Ancient  States.  The  sole  object  of  those  establish- 
ments was  originally  trade;  although  we  have  seen,  in  one  of  them, 
the  anomaly  of  a  mere  trading  company  attaining  a  political  charac- 
ter, disbursing  revenues,  and  maintaining  armies  and  fortresses,  un- 
til it  has  extended  its  control  over  seventy  millions  of  people.  Dif- 
fering from  these,  and  still  differing  more  from  the  New  England 
and  North  American  Colonies,  are  the  European  settlements  in  the 
West  India  Islands.  It  is  not  strange,  that  when  men's  minds  were 
turned  to  the  settlement  of  America,  different  objects  should  be  pro- 
posed by  those  who  emigrated  to  the  different  regions  of  so  vast  a 
country.  Climate,  soil,  and  condition  were  not  all  equally  favorable 
to  all  pursuits.  In  the  West  Indies,  the  purpose  of  those  who  went 
thither,  was  to  engage  in  that  species  of  agriculture,  suited  to  the 
soil  and  climate,  which  seems  to  bear  more  resemblance  to  com- 
merce, than  to  the  hard  and  plain  tillage  of  New  England.  The 
great  staples  of  these  countries,  being  partly  an  agricultural  and 
partly  a  manufactured  product,  and  not  being  of  the  necessaries  of 
life,  become  the  object  of  calculation,  with  respect  to  a  profitable 
investment  of  capital,  like  any  other  enterprise  of  trade  or  manufac- 
ture. The  more  especially,  as  they  require,  by  necessity  or  habit, 
slave  labor  for  their  production,  the  capital  necessary  to  carry  on 
the  work  of  this  production  is  more  considerable.  The  West  Indies 
are  resorted  to,  therefore,  rather  for  the  investment  of  capital,  than 
for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  life  by  personal  labor.  Such  as  pos- 
sess a  considerable  amount  of  capital,  or  such  as  choose  to  adven- 
ture in  commercial  speculations  without  capital,  can  alone  be  fitted 
to  be  emigrants  to  the  islands.  The  agriculture  of  these  regions,  as 
before  observed,  is  a  sort  of  commerce;  and  it  is  a  species  of  em- 
ployment, in  which  labor  seems  to  form  an  inconsiderable  ingredient 
in  the  productive  causes;  since  the  portion  of  white  labor  is  exceed- 
ingly small,  and  slave  labor  is  rather  more  like  profit  on  stock  or 
capital,  than  labor  properly  so  called.  The  individual  who  contem- 
plates an  establishment  of  this  kind,  takes  into  the  account  the  cost 


36 

of  the  necessary  number  of  slaves,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  cal- 
culates the  cost  of  the  land.  The  uncertainty,  too,  of  this  species  of 
employment,  affords  another  ground  of  resemblance  to  commerce. 
Although  gainful,  on  the  whole,  and  in  a  series  of  years,  it  is  often 
very  disastrous  for  a  single  year,  and  as  the  capital  is  not  readily 
invested  in  other  pursuits,  bad  crops,  or  bad  markets,  not  only  affect 
the  profits,  but  the  capital  itself.  Hence  the  sudden  depressions 
which  take  place  in  the  value  of  such  estates. 

But  the  great  and  leading  observation,  relative  to  these  establish- 
ments, remains  to  be  made.  It  is,  that  the  owners  of  the  soil  and 
of  the  capital  seldom  consider  themselves  at  home  in  the  colony.  A 
very  great  portion  of  the  soil  itself  is  usually  owned  in  the  mother 
country;  a  still  greater  is  mortgaged  for  capital  obtained  there;  and, 
in  general,  those  who  are  to  derive  an  interest  from  the  products, 
look  to  the  parent  country  as  the  place  for  enjoyment  of  their  wealth. 
The  population  is  therefore  constantly  fluctuating.  Nobody  comes 
but  to  return.  A  constant  succession  of  owners,  agents,  and  factors 
takes  place.  Whatsoever  the  soil,  forced  by  the  unmitigated  toil 
of  slavery,  can  yield,  is  borne  home  to  defray  rents,  and  interest, 
and  agencies;  or  to  give  the  means  of  living  in  a  better  society.  In 
such  a  state,  it  is  evident  that  no  spirit  of  permanent  improvement 
is  likely  to  spring  up.  Profits  will  not  be  invested  with  a  distant 
view  of  benefiting  posterity.  Roads  and  canals  will  hardly  be  built; 
schools  will  not  be  founded;  colleges  will  not  be  endowed.  There 
will  be  few  fixtures  in  society;  no  principles  of  utility  or  of  elegance, 
planted  now,  with  the  hope  of  being  developed  and  expanded  here- 
after. Profit,  immediate  profit,  must  be  the  principal  active  spring 
in  the  social  system.  There  may  be  many  particular  exceptions  to 
these  general  remarks,  but  the  outline  of  the  whole,  is  such  as  is 
here  drawn. 

Another  most  important  consequence  of  such  a  state  of  things  is, 
that  no  idea  of  independence  of  the  parent  country  is  likely  to  arise; 
unless  indeed  it  should  spring  up  in  a  form,  that  would  threaten  uni- 
versal desolation.  The  inhabitants  have  no  strong  attachment  to 
the  place  which  they  inhabit.  The  hope  of  a  great  portion  of  them, 
is  to  leave  it;  and  their  great  desire,  to  leave  it  soon.  However 
useful  they  may  be  to  the  parent  state,  how  much  soever  they  may 
add  to  the  conveniencies  and  luxuries  of  life,  these  colonies  are  not 
favored  spots  for  the  expansion  of  the  human  mind,  for  the  progress 
of  permanent  improvement,  or  for  sowing  the  seeds  of  future  inde- 
pendent empire. 

Different,  indeed,  most  widely  different,  from  all  these  instances 
of  emigration  and  plantation,  were  the  condition,  the  purposes,  and 
the  prospects  of  our  Fathers,  when  they  established  their  infant 
colony  upon  this  spot.  They  came  hither  to  a  land  from  which  they 
were  never  to  return.  Hither  they  had  brought,  and  here  they 
were  to  fix,  their  hopes,  their  attachments,  and  their  objects.  Some 
natural  tears  they  shed,  as  they  left  the  pleasant  abodes  of  their 
fathers,  and  some  emotions  they  suppressed,  when  the  white  cliffs  of 
their  native  country,  now  seen  for  the  last  time,  grew  dim  to  their 
sight.  They  were  acting  however  upon  a  resolution  not  to  be  chang- 
ed.    With  whatever  stified  regrets,  with  whatever  occasional  hesita- 


37 

tion,  with  whatever  appalling  apprehensions,  which  might  sometimes 
arise  with  force  to  shake  the  firmest  purpose,  they  had  yet  committed 
themselves  to  Heaven,  and  the  elements;  and  a  thousand  leagues  of 
water  soon  interposed  to  separate  them  forever  from  the  region  which 
gave  them  birth.  Anew  existence  awaited  them  here ;  and  when  \y 
they  saw  these  shores,  rough,  cold,  barbarous,  and  barren  as  then 
they  were,  they  beheld  their  country.  That  mixed  and  strong  feel- 
ing, which  we  call  love  of  country,  and  which  is,  in  general,  never 
extinguished  in  the  heart  of  man,  grasped  and  embraced  its  proper 
object  here.  Whatever  constitutes  counti~y,  except  the  earth  and  the 
sun,  all  the  moral  causes  of  affection  and  attachment,  which  operate 
upon  the  heart,  they  had  brought  with  them  to  their  new  abode. 
Here  were  now  their  families  and  friends;  their  homes,  and  their 
property.  Before  they  reached  the  shore,  they  had  established  the 
elements  of  a  social  system,  and  at  a  much  earlier  period  had  set- 
tled their  forms  of  religious  worship.  At  the  moment  of  their  land- 
ing, therefore,  they  possessed  institutions  of  government,  and  insti- 
tutions of  religion:  and  friends  and  families,  and  social  and  religious 
institutions,  established  by  consent,  founded  on  choice  and  prefer- 
ence, how  nearly  do  these  fill  up  our  whole  idea  of  country ! — The 
morning  that  beamed  on  the  first  night  of  their  repose,  saw  the  PiJ- 
grims  already  established  in  their  country.  There  were  political 
institutions,  and  civil  liberty,  and  religious  worship.  Poetry  has  ' 
fancied  nothing,  in  the  wanderings  of  heroes,  so  distinct  and  charac- 
teristic. Here  was  man,  indeed,  unprotected,  and  unprovided 
for,  on  the  shore  of  a  rude  and  fearful  wilderness;  but  it  was  politic, 
intelligent  and  educated  man.  Everything  was  civilized  but  the 
physical  world.  Institutions  containing  in  substance  all  that  ages 
had  done  for  human  government,  were  established  in  a  forest.  Cul- 
tivated mind  was  to  act  on  uncultivated  nature;  and,  more  than  all, 
a  government,  and  a  country,  were  to  commence,  with  the  very  first 
foundations  laid  under  the  divine  light  of  the  christian  religion. 
Happy  auspices  of  a  happy  futurity !  Who  would  wish  that  his  coun- 
try's existence  had  otherwise  begun? — Who  would  desire  the  power 
of  going  back  to  the  ages  of  fable?  Who  would  wish  for  an  origin, 
obscured  in  the  darkness  of  antiquity? — Who  would  wish  for  other 
emblazoning  of  his  country's  heraldry,  or  other  ornaments  of  her 
genealogy,  than  to  be  able  to  say,  that  her  first  existence  was  with 
intelligence;  her  first  breath  the  inspirations  of  liberty;  her  first 
principle  the  truth  of  divine  religion? 

Local  attachments  and  sympathies  would  ere  long  spring  up  in 
the  breasts  of  our  ancestors,  endearing  to  them  the  place  of  their 
refuge.  Whatever  natural  objects  are  associated  with  interesting 
scenes  and  high  efforts,  obtain  a  hold  on  human  feeling,  and  demand 
from  the  heart  a  sort  of  recognition  and  regard.  This  Rock  soon 
became  hallowed  in  the  esteem  of  the  Pilgrims,  and  these  hills  grate- 
ful to  their  sight.  Neither  they  nor  their  children  were  again  to  till 
the  soil  of  England,  nor  again  to  traverse  the  seas  which  surround- 
ed her.  But  here  was  a  new  sea,  now  open  to  their  enterprise,  and 
a  new  soil,  which  had  not  failed  to  respond  gratefully  to  their  labori- 
ous industry,  and  which  was  already  assuming  a  robe  of  verdure. 
Hardly  had  they  provided  shelter  for  the  living,  ere  they  were  surn- 

D 


38 

moned  to  erect  sepulchres  for  the  dead.  The  ground  had  become 
sacred,  by  enclosing  the  remains  of  some  of  their  companions  and 
connexions.  A  parent,  a  child,  a  husband  or  a  wife,  had  gone  the 
way  of  all  flesh,  and  mingled  with  the  dust  of  New  England.  We 
naturally  look  with  strong  emotions  to  the  spot,  though  it  be  a  wil- 
derness, where  the  ashes  of  those  we  have  loved  repose.  Where 
the  heart  has  laid  down  what  it  loved  most,  it  is  desirous  of  laying 
itself  down.  No  sculptured  marble,  no  enduring  monument,  no 
honorable  inscription,  no  ever  burning  taper  that  would  drive  away 
the  darkness  of  death,  can  soften  our  sense  of  the  reality  of  mortal- 
ity, and  hallow  to  our  feelings  the  ground  which  is  to  cover  us,  like 
the  consciousness  that  we  shall  sleep,  dust  to  dust,  with  the  objects 
of  our  affections. 

In  a  short  time  other  causes  sprung  up  to  bind  the  Pilgrims  with 
new  cords  to  their  chosen  land.  Children  were  born,  and  the  hopes 
of  future  generations  arose,  in  the  spot  of  their  new  habitation. 
The  second  generation  found  this  the  land  of  their  nativity,  and  saw 
that  they  were  bound  to  its  fortunes.  They  beheld  their  fathers' 
graves  around  them,  and  while  they  read  the  memorials  of  their 
toils  and  labors,  they  rejoiced  in  the  inheritance  which  they  found 
bequeathed  to  them. 

Under  the  influence  of  these  causes,  it  was  to  be  expected,  that 
an  interest  and  a  feeling  should  arise  here,  entirely  different  from 
the  interest  and  feeling  of  mere  Englishmen;  and  all  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  colonies  proves  this  to  have  actually  and  gradually 
taken  place.  With  a  general  acknowledgement  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  British  crown,  there  was,  from  the  first,  a  repugnance  to  an  en- 
tire submission  to  the  control  of  BritisL  I^itdatioa.  The  colonies 
stood  upon  their  charters,  which  as  they  contended,  exempted  them 
from  the  ordinary  power  of  the  British  parliament,  and  authorised 
them  to  conduct  their  own  concerns  by  their  own  counsels.  They 
utterly  resisted  the  notion  that  they  were  to  be  ruled  by  the  mere 
authority  of  the  government  at  home,  and  would  not  endure  even 
that  their  own  charter  governments  should  be  established  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  It  was  not  a  controlling  or  protecting 
board  in  England,  but  a  government  of  their  own,  and  existing  im- 
mediately within  their  limits,  which  could  satisfy  their  wishes.  It 
was  easy  to  foresee,  what  we  know  also  to  have  happened,  that  the 
first  great  cause  of  collision  and  jealousy  would  be,  under  the  notion 
of  political  economy  then  and  still  prevalent  in  Europe,  an  attempt 
on  the  part  of  the  mother  country  to  monopolize  the  trade  of  the  col- 
onies. Whoever  has  looked  deeply  into  the  causes  which  produced 
our  revolution,  has  found,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  original  principle  far 
back  in  this  claim,  on  the  part  of  England,  to  monopolize  our  trade, 
and  a  continued  effort  on  the  part  of  the  colonies  to  resist  or  evade 
that  monopoly;  if  indeed  it  be  not  still  more  just  and  philosophical 
to  go  farther  back,  and  to  consider  it  decided,  that  an  independent 
government  must  arise  here,  the  moment  it  was  ascertained  that  an 
English  colony,  such  as  landed  in  this  place,  could  sustain  itself 
against  the  dangers  which  surrounded  it,  and,  with  other  similar  es- 
tablishments, overspread  the  land  with  an  English  population.  Ac- 
cidental  causes   retarded   at  times,   and   at  times   accelerated   the 


39 

progress  of  the  controversy.  The  colonies  wanted  strength,  and 
time  gave  it  to  them.  They  required  measures  of  strong  and  pal- 
pable injustice,  on  the  part  of  the  mother  country,  to  justify  resis- 
tance; the  eaVly  part  of  the  late  king's  reign  furnished  them.  They 
needed  spirits  of  high  order,  of  great  daring,  of  long  foresight  and 
of  commanding  power,  to  seize  the  favoring  occasion  to  strike  a 
blow,  which  should  sever,  forever,  the  tie  of  colonial  dependence; 
and  these  spirits  were  found,  in  all  the  extent  which  that  or  any  cri- 
sis could  demand,  in  Otis,  Adams,  Hancock,  and  the  other  immedi- 
ate authors  of  our  independence.  Still  it  is  true,  that  for  a  century, 
causes  had  been  in  operation  tending  to  prepare  things  for  this  great 
result.  In  the  year  1660  the  English  act  of  Navigation  was  pass- 
ed; the  first  and  grand  object  of  which  seems  to  have  been  to  secure 
to  England  the  whole  trade  with  her  plantations.  It  was  provided, 
by  that  act,  that  none  but  English  ships  should  transport  American 
produce  over  the  ocean;  and  that  the  principal  articles  of  that  pro- 
duce should  be  allowed  to  be  sold  only  in  the  markets  of  the  mother 
country.  Three  years  afterwards  another  law  was  passed,  which 
enacted,  that  such  commodities  as  the  colonies  might  wish  to  pur- 
chase, should  be  bought  only  in  the  markets  of  the  mother  country. 
Severe  rules  were  prescribed  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  these  laws, 
and  heavy  penalties  imposed  on  all  who  should  violate  them.  In 
the  subsequent  years  of  the  same  reign,  other  statutes  were  passed 
to  reenforce  these  statutes,  and  other  rules  prescribed,  to  secure  a 
compliance  with  these  rules.  In  this  manner  was  the  trade,  to  and 
from  the  colonies,  tied  up,  almost  to  the  exclusive  advantage  of  the 
parent  country.  But  laws,  which  rendered  the  interest  of  a  whole 
people  subordinate  to  that  of  another  people,  were  not  likely  to  ex- 
ecute themselves;  nor  was  it  easy  to  find  many  on  the  spot,  who 
could  be  depended  upon  for  carrying  them  into  execution.  In  fact, 
these  laws  were  more  or  less  evaded,  or  resisted,  in  all  the  colonies. 
To  enforce  them  was  the  constant  endeavour  of  the  government  at 
home;  to  prevent  or  elude  their  operation,  the  perpetual  object  here. 
"  The  laws  of  navigation,"  says  a  living  British  writer,  "  were  no- 
where so  openly  disobeyed  and  contemned  as  in  New  England." 
"  The  people  of  Massachusetts  Bay,"  he  adds,  "  were  from  the  first 
disposed  to  act  as  if  independent  of  the  mother  country,  and  having 
a  governor  and  magistrates  of  their  own  choice,  it  was  difficult  to 
enforce  any  regulation  which  came  from  the  English  parliament, 
adverse  to  their  interests."  To  provide  more  effectually  for  the  ex- 
ecution of  these  laws,  we  know  that  courts  of  admiralty  were  af- 
terwards established  by  the  crown,  with  power  to  try  revenue 
causes,  as  questions  of  admiralty,  upon  the  construction  given  by 
the  crown  lawyers,  to  an  act  of  parliament; — a  great  departure  from 
the  ordinary  principles  of  English  jurisprudence,  but  which  has 
been  maintained,  nevertheless,  by  the  force  of  habit  and  precedent, 
and  is  adopted  in  our  own  existing  systems  of  government. 

"  There  lie,"  says  another  English  writer,  whose  connexion  with 
the  Board  of  Trade  has  enabled  him  to  ascertain  many  facts  con- 
nected with  colonial  history, — "  There  lie  among  the  documents  in 
the  board  of  trade  and  paper  office,  the  most  satisfactory  proofs, 
from  the  epoch  of  the  English  revolution  in  1688,  throughout  every 


40 

reign,  and  during  every  administration,  of  the  settled  purpose  of  the 
colonies  to  acquire  direct  independence  and  positive  sovereignty." 
Perhaps  this  may  be  stated  somewhat  too  strongly;  but  it  cannot  be 
denied,  that  from  the  very  nature  of  the  establishments  here,  and 
from  the  general  character  of  the  measures  respecting  their  con- 
cerns, early  adopted,  and  steadily  pursued  by  the  English  govern- 
ment, a  division  of  the  empire  was  the  natural  and  necessary  result 
to  which  everything  tended. 

I  have  dwelt  on  this  topic,  because  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  pe- 
culiar original  character  of  the  New  England  colonies,  and  certain 
causes  coeval  with  their  existence,  have  had  a  strong  and  decided 
jifluence  on  all  their  subsequent  history,  and  especially  on  the  great 
event  of  the  Revolution.  Whoever  would  write  our  history,  and 
would  understand  and  explain  early  transactions,  should  comprehend 
the  nature  and  force  of  the  feeling  which  I  have  endeavoured  to 
describe.  As  a  son,  leaving  the  house  of  his  father  for  his  own, 
finds,  by  the  order  of  nature,  and  the  very  law  of  his  being,  nearer 
and  dearer  objects  around  which  his  affections  circle,  while  his  at- 
tachment to  the  parental  roof  becomes  moderated,  by  degrees,  to  a 
composed  regard,  and  an  affectionate  remembrance;  so  our  ances- 
tors, leaving  their  native  land,  not  without  some  violence  to  the  feel- 
ings of  nature  and  affection,  yet,  in  time,  found  here  a  new  circle  of 
engagements,  interests,  and  affections;  a  feeling,  which  more  and 
more  encroached  upon  the  old,  till  an  undivided  sentiment,  that 
this  was  their  country,  occupied  the  heart;  and  patriotism,  shutting 
out  from  its  embraces  the  parent  realm,  became  local  to  America. 

Some  retrospect  of  the  century  which  has  now  elapsed,  is  among 
the  duties  of  the  occasion.  It  must,  however,  necessarily  be  im- 
perfect, to  be  compressed  within  the  limits  of  a  single  discourse. 
I  shall  content  myself,  therefore,  with  taking  notice  of  a  few  of  the 
leading,  and  most  important  occurrences,  which  have  distinguished 
the  period. 

When  the  first  century  closed,  the  progress  of  the  country  ap- 
peared to  have  been  considerable;  notwithstanding  that,  in  compari- 
son with  its  subsequent,  advancement,  it  now  seems  otherwise.  A 
broad  and  lasting  foundation  had  been  laid:  excellent  institutions 
had  been  established  ;  much  of  the  prejudices  of  former  times  had 
become  removed;  a  more  liberal  and  catholic  spirit  on  subjects  of 
religious  concern  had  begun  to  extend  itself,  and  many  things  con- 
spired to  give  promise  of  increasing  future  prosperity.  Great  men 
had  arisen  in  public  life,  and  the  liberal  professions.  The  Mathers, 
father  and  son,  were  then  sinking  low  in  the  western  horizon;  Lev- 
erett,  the  learned,  the  accomplished,  the  excellent  Leverett,  was 
about  to  withdraw  his  brilliant  and  useful  light.  In  Pemberton, 
great  hopes  had  been  suddenly  extinguished,  but  Prince  and  Col- 
man,  were  in  our  sky;  and  the  crepuscular  light  had  begun  to  flash 
along  the  East,  of  a  great  luminary  which  was  about  to  appear; 
and  which  was  to  mark  the  age  with  his  own  name,  as  the  age  of 
Franklin. 

The  bloody  Indian  wars,  which  harassed  the  people  for  a  part  of 
the  first  century;  the  restrictions  on  the  trade  of  the  colonies — ad- 
ded  to  the   discouragements  inherently  belonging  to  all  forms  of 


41 

colonial  government;  the  distance  from  Europe,  and  the  small  hope 
of  immediate  profit  to  adventurers,  are  among  the  causes  which  had 
contributed  to  retard  the  progress  of  population.  Perhaps  it  may 
be  added,  also,  that  during  the  period  of  the  civil  wars  in  England, 
and  the  reign  of  Cromwell,  many  persons,  whose  religious  opinions 
and  religious  temper  might,  under  other  circumstances,  have  induced 
them  to  join  the  New  England  colonists,  found  reasons  to  remain  in 
England;  either  on  account  of  active  occupation  in  the  scenes  which 
were  passing,  or  of  an  anticipation  of  the  enjoyment,  in  their  own 
country,  of  a  form  of  government,  civil  and  religious,  accommodated 
to  their  views  and  principles.  The  violent  measures,  too,  pursued 
against  the  colonies  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  second,  the  mockery 
of  a  trial,  and  the  forfeiture  of  the  charters,  were  serious  evils. 
And  during  the  open  violences  of  the  short  reign  of  James  the  sec- 
ond, and  the  tyranny  of  Andros,  as  the  venerable  historian  of  Con- 
necticut observes,  "  All  the  motives  to  great  actions,  to  industry, 
economy,  enterprise,  ivealth,  and  population,  were  in  a  manner  annihila- 
ted. A  general  inactivity  and  languishment  pervaded  the  public  body 
Liberty,  property,  and  everything  which  ought  to  be  dear  to  men,  every 
day  grew  more  and  more  insecure." 

With  the  revolution  in  England,  a  better  prospect  had  opened  on 
this  country,  as  well  as  on  that.  The  joy  had  been  as  great,  at  that 
event,  and  far  more  universal  in  New  than  in  Old  England.  A  new 
charter  had  been  granted  to  Massachusetts,  which,  although  it  did 
not  confirm  to  her  inhabitants  all  their  former  privileges,  yet  reliev- 
ed them  from  great  evils  and  embarrassments,  and  promised  future 
security.  More  than  all,  perhaps,  the  revolution  in  England,  had 
done  good  to  the  general  cause  of  liberty  and  justice.  A  blow  had 
been  struck  in  favor  of  the  rights  and  liberties,  not  of  England 
alone,  but  of  descendants  and  kinsmen  of  England,  all  over  the 
world.  Great  political  truths  had  been  established.  The  champi- 
ons of  liberty  had  been  successful  in  a  fearful  and  perilous  conflict. 
Somers,  and  Cavendish,  and  Jekyl,  and  Howard,  had  triumphed  in 
one  of  the  most  noble  causes  ever  undertaken  by  men.  A  revolu- 
tion had  been  made  upon  principle.  A  monarch  had  been  dethron- 
ed, for  violating  the  original  compact  between  King  and  People. 
The  rights  of  the  people  to  partake  in  the  government,  and  to  limit 
the  monarch  by  fundamental  rules  of  government,  had  been  main- 
tained; and  however  unjust  the  government  of  England  might  after- 
wards be,  towards  other  governments  or  towards  her  colonies,  she 
had  ceased  to  be  governed  herself  by  the  arbitrary  maxims  of  the 
Stuarts. 

New  England  had  submitted  to  the  violence  of  James  the  second, 
not  longer  than  Old  England.  Not  only  was  it  reserved  to  Massachu- 
setts, that  on  her  soil  should  be  acted  the  first  scene  of  that  great 
revolutionary  Drama,  which  was  to  take  place  near  a  century  after- 
wards, but  the  English  revolution  itself,  as  far  as  the  colonies  were 
concerned,  commenced  in  Boston.  A  direct  and  forcible  resistance 
to  the  authority  of  James  the  second,  was  the  seizure  and  imprison-, 
ment  of  Andros,  in  April  1689.  The  pulse  of  Liberty  beat  as  high/ 
in  the  extremities  as  at  the  heart.  The  vigorous  feeling  of  the^ 
Colony  burst  out,  before  it  was  known  how  the  parent  country 
6  d* 


42 

would  finally  conduct  itself.  The  king's  representative,  Sir  Ed- 
mund Andros,  was  a  prisoner  in  the  castle  at  Boston,  before  it  was 
or  could  be  known,  that  the  king  himself  had  ceased  to  exercise 
his  full  dominion  on  the  English  throne. 

Before  it  was  known  here,  whether  the  invasion  of  the  Prince  of 
Orange  would  or  could  prove  successful;  as  soon  only  as  it  was  known 
that  it  had  been  undertaken,  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  at  the 
imminent  hazard  of  their  lives  and  fortunes,  had  accomplished  the 
revolution  as  far  as  respected  themselves.  It  is  probable,  that, 
reasoning  on  general  principles,  and  the  known  attachment  of  the 
English  people  to  their  constitution  and  liberties,  and  their  deep 
and  fixed  dislike  of  the  king's  religion  and  politics,  the  people  of 
New  England  expected  a  catastrophe  fatal  to  the  power  of  the  reign- 
ing Prince.  Yet,  it  was  not  either  certain  enough,  or  near  enough, 
to  come  to  their  aid  against  the  authority  of  the  crown,  in  that  crisis 
which  had  arrived,  and  in  which  they  trusted  to  put  themselves,  re- 
lying on  God,  and  their  own  courage.  There  were  spirits  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, congenial  with  the  spirits  of  the  distinguished  friends  of 
the  revolution  in  England.  There  were  those,  who  were  fit  to  asso- 
ciate with  the  boldest  asserters  of  civil  liberty;  and  Mather  himself, 
then  in  England,  was  not  unworthy  to  be  ranked  with  those  sons  of 
the  church,  whose  firmness  and  spirit  in  resisting  kingly  encroach- 
ment in  religion,  entitled  them  to  the  gratitude  of  their  own  and 
succeeding  ages. 

The  second  century  opened  upon  New  England  under  circum- 
stances which  evinced  that  much  had  already  been  accomplished, 
and  that  still  better  prospects,  and  brighter  hopes,  were  before  her. 
She  had  laid,  deep  and  strong,  the  foundations  of  her  society.  Her 
religious  principles  were  firm,  and  her  moral  habits  exemplary. 
Her  public  schools  had  begun  to  diffuse  widely  the  elements  of 
knowledge;  and  the  College,  under  the  excellent  and  acceptable 
administration  of  Leverett,  had  been  raised  to  a  high  degree  of 
credit  and  usefulness. 

The  commercial  character  of  the  country,  notwithstanding  all 
discouragements,  had  begun  to  display  itself,  and  five  hundred  ves- 
sels, then  belonging  to  Massachusetts,  placed  her  in  relation  to  com- 
merce, thus  early,  at  the  head  of  the  colonies.  An  author  who 
wrote  very  near  the  close  of  the  first  century  says;  "  New  England 
is  almost  deserving  that  noble  name,  so  mightily  hath  it  increased; 
and  from  a  small  settlement,  at  first,  is  now  become  a  very  populous 
and  flourishing  government.  The  capital  city,  Boston,  is  a  place  of 
great  wealth  and  trade;  and  by  much  the  largest  of  any  in  the  Eng- 
lish empire  of  America;  and  not  exceeded  but  by  few  cities,  perhaps 
two  or  three,  in  all  the  American  world." 

But,  if  our  ancestors  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  could  look 
back  with  joy,  and  even  admiration  at  the  progress  of  the  country; 
what  emotions  must  we  not  feel,  when,  from  the  point  in  which  we 
stand,  we  also  look  back  and  run  along  the  events  of  the  century 
which  has  now  closed?  The  country,  which  then,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  thought  deserving  of  a  u noble  name;"  which  then  had 
"mightily  increased,"  and  become  avery  populous;"  what  was  it, 
in  comparison  with  what  our  eyes  behold  it  ?     At  that  period,  a  very 


43 

great  proportion  of  its  inhabitants  lived  in  the  eastern  section  of 
Massachusetts  proper,  and  in  this  colony.  In  Connecticut,  there 
were  towns  along  the  coast,  some  of  them  respectable,  but  in  the 
interior,  all  was  a  wilderness  beyond  Hartford.  On  Connecticut 
river,  settlements  had  proceeded  as  far  up  as  Deerfield,  and  Fort 
Dummer  had  been  built,  near  where  is  now  the  south  line  of  New 
Hampshire.  In  New  Hampshire,  no  settlement  was  then  begun 
thirty  miles  from  the  mouth  of  Piscataqua  river,  and,  in  what  is  now 
Maine,  the  inhabitants  were  confined  to  the  coast.  The  aggregate 
of  the  whole  population  of  New  England  did  not  exceed  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  thousand.  Its  present  amount  is  probably  one  million 
seven  hundred  thousand.  Instead  of  being  confined  to  its  former 
limits,  her  population  has  rolled  backward  and  filled  up  the  spaces 
included  within  her  actual  local  boundaries.  Not  this  only,  but  it 
has  overflowed  those  boundaries,  and  the  waves  of  emigration  have 
pressed,  farther  and  farther  toward  the  west.  The  Alleghany  has 
not  checked  it;  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  have  been  covered  with  it. 
New  England  farms,  houses,  villages,  and  churches  spread  over, 
and  adorn  the  immense  extent  from  the  Ohio  to  Lake  Erie;  and 
stretch  along,  from  the  Alleghany  onwards,  beyond  the  Miamis,  and 
toward  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony.  Two  thousand  miles  westward 
from  the  rock  where  their  fathers  landed,  may  now  be  found  the 
sons  of  the  Pilgrims;  cultivating  smiling  fields,  rearing  towns  and 
villages,  and  cherishing,  we  trust,  the  patrimonial  blessings  of  wise 
institutions,  of  liberty,  and  religion.  The  world  has  seen  nothing 
like  this.  Regions  large  enough  to  be  empires,  and  which,  half  a 
century  ago,  were  known  only  as  remote  and  unexplored  wilder- 
nesses, are  now  teeming  with  population,  and  prosperous  in  all  the 
great  concerns  of  life;  in  good  governments,  the  means  of  subsis- 
tence, and  social  happiness.  It  may  be  safely  asserted,  that  there 
are  now  more  than  a  million  of  people,  descendants  of  New  Eng- 
land ancestry,  living  free  and  happy,  in  regions,  which  hardly  sixty 
years  ago  were  tracts  of  unpenetrated  forest.  Nor  do  rivers,  or 
mountains,  or  seas  resist  the  progress  of  industry  and  enterprise. 
Ere  long,  the  sons  of  the  Pilgrims  will  be  on  the  shores  of  the 
Pacific.  The  imagination  hardly  keeps  up  with  the  progress  of 
population,  improvement,  and  civilisation. 

It  is  now  five  and  forty  years,  since  the  growth  and  rising  glory 
of  America  were  portrayed  in  the  English  parliament,  with  inimita- 
ble beauty,  by  the  most  consummate  orator  of  modern  times.  Going 
back  somewhat  more  than  half  a  century,  and  describing  our  progress 
as  foreseen,  from  that  point,  by  his  amiable  friend  Lord  Bathurst, 
then  living,  he  spoke  of  the  wonderful  progress  which  America  had 
made  during  the  period  of  a  single  human  life.  There  is  no  Amer- 
ican heart,  I  imagine,  that  does  not  glow,  both  with  conscious  patri- 
otic pride,  and  admiration  for  one  of  the  happiest  efforts  of  eloquence, 
so  often  as  the  vision,  of  "  that  little  speck,  scarce  visible  in  the  mass 
of  national  interest,  a  small  seminal  principle,  rather  than  a  formed 
body,"  and  the  progress  of  its  astonishing  developement  and  growth, 
are  recalled  to  the  recollection.  But  a  stronger  feeling  might  be 
produced,  if  we  were  able  to  take  up  this  prophetic  description  where 
he  left  it;  and  placing  ourselves  at  the  point  of  time  in  which  he 


44 

was  speaking,  to  set  forth  with  equal  felicity  the  subsequent  progress 
of  the  country.  There  is  yet  among  the  living  a  most  distinguished 
and  venerable  name,  a  descendant  of  the  Pilgrims;  one  who  has 
been  attended  through  life  by  a  great  and  fortunate  genius;  a  man 
illustrious  by  his  own  great  merits,  and  favored  of  Heaven  in  the 
long  continuation  of  his  years.  The  time  when  the  English  orator 
was  thus  speaking  of  America,  preceded,  but  by  a  few  days,  the  ac- 
tual opening  of  the  revolutionary  drama  at  Lexington.  He  to  whom 
I  have  alluded,  then  at  the  age  of  forty,  was  among  the  most  zeal- 
ous and  able  defenders  of  the  violated  rights  of  his  country.  He 
seemed  already  to  have  filled  a  full  measure  of  public  service,  and 
attained  an  honorable  fame.  The  moment  was  full  of  difficulty  and 
danger,  and  big  with  events  of  immeasurable  importance.  The 
country  was  on  the  very  brink  of  a  civil  war,  of  which  no  man  could 
foretell  the  duration  or  the  result.  Something  more  than  a  coura- 
geous hope,  or  characteristic  ardor,  would  have  been  necessary  to 
impress  the  glorious  prospect  on  his  belief,  if,  at  that  moment,  before 
the  sound  of  the  first  shock  of  actual  war  had  reached  his  ears, 
some  attendant  spirit  had  opened  to  him  the  vision  of  the  future ;  if 
it  had  said  to  him,  "  The  blow  is  struck,  and  America  is  severed  from 
England  forever  !"  if  it  had  informed  him,  that  he  himself,  the  next 
annual  revolution  of  the  sun,  should  put  his  own  hand  to  the  great 
instrument  of  Independence,  and  write  his  name  where  all  nations 
should  behold  it,  and  all  time  should  not  efface  it;  that  ere  long  he 
himself  should  maintain  the  interest  and  represent  the  sovereignty 
of  his  new-born  country,  in  the  proudest  courts  of  Europe;  that  he 
should  one  day  exercise  her  supreme  magistracy ;  that  he  should  yet 
live  to  behold  ten  millions  of  fellow  citizens  paying  him  the  homage 
of  their  deepest  gratitude  and  kindest  affections;  that  he  should  see 
distinguished  talent  and  high  public  trust  resting  where  his  name  rest- 
ed; that  he  should  even  see  with  his  own  unclouded  eyes,  the  close 
of  the  second  century  of  New  England,  who  had  begun  life  almost 
with  its  commencement,  and  lived  through  nearly  half  the  whole  his- 
tory of  his  country;  and  that  on  the  morning  of  this  auspicious  day, 
he  should  be  found  in  the  political  councils  of  his  native  state,  revis- 
ing, by  the  light  of  experience,  that  system  of  government,  which 
forty  years  before  he  had  assisted  to  frame  and  establish;  and  great 
and  happy  as  he  should  then  behold  his  country,  there  should  be 
nothing  in  prospect  to  cloud  the  scene,  nothing  to  check  the  ardor 
of  that  confident  and  patriotic  hope,  which  should  glow  in  his  bosom 
to  the  end  of  his  long  protracted  and  happy  life. 

It  would  far  exceed  the  limits  of  this  discourse,  even  to  mention 
the  principal  events  in  the  civil  and  political  history  of  New  England 
during  the  century;  the  more  so,  as  for  the  last  half  of  the  period, 
that  history  has  been,  most  happily,  closely  interwoven  with  the  gen- 
eral history  of  the  United  States.  New  England  bore  an  honorable 
part  in  the  wars  which  took  place  between  England  and  France. 
The  capture  of  Louisburg  gave  her  a  character  for  military  achieve- 
ment; and  in  the  war  which  terminated  with  the  peace  of  1763,  her 
exertions  on  the  frontiers  were  of  most  essential  service  as  well  to 
the  mother  country  as  to  all  the  colonies. 


45 

In  New  England  the  war  of  the  revolution  commenced.  I  ad- 
dress those  who  remember  the  memorable  19th  of  April  1775;  who 
shortly  after  saw  the  burning  spires  of  Charlestown;  who  beheld  the 
deeds  of  Prescott,  and  heard  the  voice  of  Putnam,  amidst  the  storm 
of  war,  and  saw  the  generous  Warren  fall,  the  first  distinguished 
victim  in  the  cause  of  liberty.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  say,  that 
no  portion  of  the  country  did  more  than  the  states  of  New  England, 
to  bring  the  revolutionary  struggle  to  a  successful  issue.  It  is  scarce- 
ly less  to  her  credit,  that  she  saw  early  the  necessity  of  a  closer 
union  of  the  states,  and  gave  an  efficient  and  indispensable  aid  to 
the  establishment  and  organization  of  the  federal  government. 

Perhaps  we  might  safely  say,  that  a  new  spirit,  and  a  new  excite- 
ment began  to  exist  here,  about  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  To 
whatever  causes  it  may  be  imputed,  there  seems  then  to  have  com- 
menced a  more  rapid  improvement.  The  colonies  had  attracted 
more  of  the  attention  of  the  mother  country,  and  some  renown  in 
arms  had  been  acquired.  Lord  Chatham  was  the  first  English  min- 
ister who  attached  high  importance  to  these  possessions  of  the  crown, 
and  who  foresaw  anything  of  their  future  growth  and  extension.  His 
opinion  was,  that  the  great  rival  of  England  was  chiefly  to  be  feared 
as  a  maritime  and  commercial  power,  and  to  drive  her  out  of  North 
America,  and  deprive  her  of  her  West  India  possessions  was  a  lead- 
ing object  in  his  policy.  He  dwelt  often  on  the  fisheries,  as  nurse- 
ries for  British  seamen,  and  the  colonial  trade,  as  furnishing  them 
employment.  The  war,  conducted  by  him  with  so  much  vigor,  ter- 
minated in  a  peace,  by  which  Canada  was  ceded  to  England.  The 
effect  of  this  was  immediately  visible  in  the  New  England  colonies; 
for  the  fear  of  Indian  hostilities  on  the  frontiers  being  now  happily 
removed,  settlements  went  on  with  an  activity  before  that  time  alto- 
gether unprecedented,  and  public  affairs  wore  a  new  and  encouraging 
aspect.  Skortly  after  this  fortunate  termination  of  the  French  war, 
the  interesting  topics  connected  with  the  taxation  of  America  by 
the  British  Parliament  began  to  be  discussed,  and  the  attention  and 
all  the  faculties  of  the  people  drawn  towards  them.  There  is  per- 
haps no  portion  of  our  history  more  full  of  interest  than  the  period 
from  1760  to  the  actual  commencement  of  the  war.  The  progress 
of  opinion,  in  this  period,  though  less  known,  is  not  less  important, 
than  the  progress  of  arms  afterwards.  Nothing  deserves  more 
consideration  than  those  events  and  discussions  which  affected  the 
public  sentiment,  and  settled  the  revolution  in  men's  minds,  before 
hostilities  openly  broke  out. 

Internal  improvement  followed  the  establishment,  and  prosperous 
commencement,  of  the  present  government.  More  has  been  done 
for  roads,  canals,  and  other  public  works,  within  the  last  thirty  years, 
than  in  all  our  former  history.  In  the  first  of  these  particulars,  few 
countries  excel  the  New  England  States.  The  astonishing  increase 
of  their  navigation  and  trade  is  known  to  every  one,  and  now  belongs 
to  the  history  of  our  national  wealth. 

We  may  natter  ourselves,  too,  that  literature  and  taste  have  not 
been  stationary,  and  that  some  advancement  has  been  made  in  the 
elegant,  as  well  as  in  the  useful  arts. 


46 

The  nature  and  constitution  of  society  and  government,  in  this 
country,  are  interesting  topics,  to  which  I  would  devote  what  remains 
of  the  time  allowed  to  this  occasion.  Of  our  system  of  government, 
the  first  thing  to  be  said,  is,  that  it  is  really  and  practically  a  free 
system.  It  originates  entirely  with  the  people,  and  rests  on  no  other 
foundation  than  their  assent.  To  judge  of  its  actual  operation, 
it  is  not  enough  to  look  merely  at  the  form  of  its  construction.  The 
practical  character  of  government  depends  often  on  a  variety  of 
considerations,  besides  the  abstract  frame  of  its  constitutional  organ- 
ization. Among  these,  are  the  condition  and  tenure  of  property; 
the  laws  regulating  its  alienation  and  descent;  the  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  a  military  power;  an  armed  or  unarmed  yeomanry;  the 
spirit  of  the  age,  and  the  degree  of  general  intelligence.  In  these 
respects  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  circumstances  of  this  country 
are  most  favorable  to  the  hope  of  maintaining  the  government  of  a 
great  nation  on  principles  entirely  popular.  In  the  absence  of  mili- 
tary power,  the  nature  of  government  must  essentially  depend  on 
the  manner  in  which  property  is  holden  and  distributed.  There  is 
a  natural  influence  belonging  to  property,  whether  it  exists  in  many 
hands  or  few;  and  it  is  on  the  rights  of  property,  that  both  despotism 
and  unrestrained  popular  violence  ordinarily  commence  their  attacks. 
>ur  ancestors  began  their  system  of  government  here,  under  a  con- 
dition of  comparative  equality,  in  regard  to  wealth,  and  their  early 
laws  were  of  a  nature  to  favor  and  continue  this  equality.*  A  re- 
publican form  of  government  rests,  not  more  on  political  constitu- 
tions, than  on  those  laws  which  regulate  the  descent  and  transmis- 
sion of  property. — Governments  like  ours  could  not  have  been 
maintained,  where  property  was  holden  according  to  the  principles 
of  the  feudal  system;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  could  the  feudal  con- 
stitution possibly  exist  with  us.  Our  New  England  ancestors  brought 
hither  no  great  capitals  from  Europe;  and  if  they  had,  there  was 
nothing  productive  in  which  they  could  have  been  invested.  They 
left  behind  them  the  whole  feudal  policy  of  the  other  continent. 
They  broke  away,  at  once,  from  the  system  of  military  service,  es- 
tablished in  the  dark  ages,  and  which  continues,  down  even  to  the 
present  time,  more  or  less  to  affect  the  condition  of  property  all  over 
Europe.  They  came  to  a  new  country.  There  were,  as  yet,  no 
lands  yielding  rent,  and  no  tenants  rendering  service.  The  whole 
soil  wasunreclaimed  from  barbarism.  They  were  themselves,  either 
from  their  original  condition,  or  from  the  necessity  of  their  common 
interest,  nearly  on  a  general  level,  in  respect  to  property.  Their 
situation  demanded  a  parceling  out  and  division  of  the  lands;  and 
it  may  be  fairly  said,  that  this  necessary  act  fixed  the  future  frame  and 
form  of  their  government.  The  character  of  their  political  institutions 
was  determined  by  the  fundamental  laws  respecting  property.  The 
laws  rendered  estates  divisible  among  sons  and  daughters.  The 
right  of  primogeniture,  at  first  limited,  and  curtailed,  was  afterwards 

*  The  contents  of  several  of  the  following  pages  will  be  found  also  in  the  printed  account 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Massachusetts  convention,  in  some  remarks  made  by  the  author  a 
few  days  before  the  delivery  of  this  discourse.  As  those  remarks  were  originally  written 
for  this  discourse,  it  was  thought  proper  not  to  omit  them,  in  the  publication,  notwithstand- 
ing this  circumstance. 


47 

abolished.     The  property  was  all  freehold.     The  entailment  of  eg 
tates,  long  trusts,  and  the  other  processes  for  fettering  and  tying  up 
inheritances,  were  not  applicable  to  the  condition  of  society,  anc" 
seldom  made  use  of.     On  the  contrary,  alienation  of  the  land  was 
every  way  facilitated,  even  to  the  subjecting  of  it  to  every  species 
of  debt.     The  establishment  of  public  registries,  and  the  simplicity 
of  our  forms  of  conveyance,  have  greatly  facilitated  the  change  of       N 
real  estate  from  one  proprietor  to  another.     The  consequence  of 
all  these  causes  has  been,  a  great  subdivision  of  the  soil,  and  a  great     / 
equality  of  condition;  the  true  basis  most  certainly  of  a  popular  gov-    / 
ernment. — "  If  the  people,"  says  Harrington,  "  hold  three  parts  in 
four  of  the  territory,  it  is  plain  there  can  neither  be  any  single  per- 
son nor  nobility  able  to  dispute  the  government  with  them;  in  this 
case,  therefore,  except  force  be  interposed,  they  govern  themselves." 

The  history  of  other  nations  may  teach  us  how  favorable  to  pub- 
lic liberty  is  the  division  of  the  soil  into  small  freeholds,  and  a  syse 
tern  of  laws,  of  which  the  tendency  is,  without  violence  or  injustice,^^ 
to  produce  and  to  preserve  a  degree  of  equality  of  property.  It  hasv^ 
been  estimated,  if  I  mistake  not,  that  about  the  time  of  Henry  the 
VII.,  four-fifths  of  the  land  in  England  was  holden  by  the  great 
barons  and  ecclesiastics.  The  effects  of  a  growing  commerce  soon 
afterwards  began  to  break  in  on  this  state  of  things,  and  before  the 
revolution  in  1688,  a  vast  change  had  been  wrought.  It  may  be 
thought  probable,  that,  for  the  last  half  century,  the  process  of  sub- 
division in  England,  has  been  retarded,  if  not  reversed;  that  the 
great  weight  of  taxation  has  compelled  many  of  the  lesser  freehold- 
ers to  dispose  of  their  estates,  and  to  seek  employment  in  the  army 
and  navy;  in  the  professions  of  civil  life;  in  commerce  or  in  the  col- 
onies. The  effect  of  this  on  the  British  constitution  cannot  but  be 
most  unfavorable.  A  few  large  estates  grow  larger;  but  the  number 
of  those  who  have  no  estates  also  increases;  and  there  may  be  dan- 
ger, lest  the  inequality  of  property  become  so  great,  that  those  who 
possess  it  may  be  dispossessed  by  force ;  in  other  words,  that  the 
government  may  be  overturned. 

A  most  interesting  experiment  of  the  effect  of  a  subdivision  of 
property  on  government,  is  now  making  in  France.  It  is  under- 
stood, that  the  law  regulating  the  transmission  of  property,  in  that 
country,  now  divides  it,  real  and  personal,  among  all  the  children, 
equally,  both  sons  and  daughters;  and  that  there  is,  also,  a  very  great 
restraint  on  the  power  of  making  dispositions  of  property  by  will. 
It  has  been  supposed,  that  the  effects  of  this  might  probably  be,  in 
time,  to  break  up  the  soil  into  such  small  subdivisions,  that  the  pro- 
prietors would  be  too  poor  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  executive 
power.  I  think  far  otherwise.  What  is  lost  in  individual  wealth, 
will  be  more  than  gained  in  numbers,  in  intelligence,  and  in  a  sym- 
pathy of  sentiment.  If,  indeed,  only  one,  or  a  few  landholders  were 
to  resist  the  crown,  like  the  barons  of  England,  they  must,  of  course, 
be  great  and  powerful  landholders  with  multitudes  of  retainers,  to 
promise  success.  But  if  the  proprietors  of  a  given  extent  of  terri- 
tory are  summoned  to  resistance,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
such  resistance  would  be  less  forcible,  or  less  successful,  because 
the  number  of  such  proprietors  should   be  great.     Each  would  per- 

,^>   OF  THK      %. 

TTtflVERSIT 


48 

ceive  his  own  importance,  and  his  own  interest,  find  would  feel  that 
'natural  elevation  oi  character  which  the  consciousness  of  property 
inspires?  A  common  sentiment  would  unite  all,  and  numbers  would 
not  only  add  strength,  but  excite  enthusiasm.  It  is  true,  that  France 
possesses  a  vast  military  force,  under  the  direction  of  an  hereditary 
executive  government;  and  military  power,  it  is  possible,  may  over- 
throw any  government.  It  is  in  vain,  however,  in  this  period  of  the 
world,  to  look  for  security  against  military  power,  to  the  arm  of  the 
great  landholders.  That  notion  is  derived  from  a  state  of  things 
long  since  past;  a  state  in  which  a  feudal  baron,  with  his  retainers, 
might  stand  against  the  sovereign,  who  was  himself  but  the  greatest 
baron,  and  his  retainers.  But  at  present,  what  could  the  richest 
landholder  do,  against  one  regiment  of  disciplined  troops  ?  Other 
securities,  therefore,  against  the  prevalence  of  military  power  must 
be  provided.  Happily  for  us,  we  are  not  so  situated  as  that  any  pur- 
pose of  national  defence  requires,  ordinarily  and  constantly,  such  a 
military  force  as  might  seriously  endanger  our  liberties. 

In  respect,  however,  to  the  recent  law  of  succession  in  France, 
to  which  I  have  alluded,  I  would,  presumptuously  perhaps,  hazard 
a  conjecture,  that  if  the  government  do  not  changje  the  law,  the  law, 
in  half  a  century,  will  change  the  government ;  and  that  this  change 
will  be  not  in  favor  of  the  power  of  the  crown,  as  some  European 
writers  have  supposed,  but  against  it.  Those  writers  only  reason 
upon  what  they  think  correct  general  principles,  in  relation  to  this 
subject.     They  acknowledge  a  want  of  experience.     Here  we  have 

id  that  experience;  and  we  know  that  a  multitude  of  small  propri- 
etors, acting  with  intelligence,  and  that  enthusiasm  which  a  common 
cause  inspires,  constitute  not  only  a  formidable,  but  an  invincible 
rer. 

The  true  principle  of  a  free  and  popular  government  would  seem 
rto  be,  so  to  construct  it,  as  to  give  to  all,  or  at  least  to  a  very  great 
majority,  an  interest  in  its  preservation:  to  found  it,  as  other  things 
•e  founded,  on  men's  interest.  The  stability  of  government  re- 
quires that  those  who  desire  its  continuance  should  be  more  power- 
ful than  those  who  desire  its  dissolution.  This  power,  of  course, 
is  not  always  to  be  measured  by  mere  numbers. — Education, 
wealth,  talents,  are  all  parts  and  elements  of  the  general  aggregate 
of  power;  but  numbers,  nevertheless,  constitute  ordinarily  the  most 
important  consideration,  unless  indeed  there  be  a  military  force,  in 
the  hands  of  the  few,  by  which  they  can  control  the  many.  In  this 
country  we  have  actually  existing  systems  of  government,  in  the 
maintenance  of  which,  it  should  seem,  a  great  majority,  both  in 
numbers  and  in  other  means  of  power  and  influence,  must  see  their 

< interest.     But  this  state  of  things  is  not  brought  about  solely  by 
/written  political  constitutions,  or  the  mere  manner  of  organizing 
^  the  government;  but  also  by  the  laws  which  regulate  the  descent 
^s^d  transmission  of  property.     The  freest  government,  if  it  could 
^xist,  would  not  be  long  acceptable,  if  the  tendency  of  the  laws 
were  to  create  a  rapid  accumulation  of  property  in  few  hands,  and 
to  render  the  great  mass  of  the  population  dependent  and  pennyless 
In  such  a  case,  the  popular  power  would  be  likely  to  break  in  upon 
the  rights  of  property,  or  else  the  influence  of  property  to  limit  and 


49 

control  the  exercise  of  popular  power. — Universal  suffrage,  for  ex- 
ample, could  not  long  exist  in  a  community,  where  there  was  great 
inequality  of  property.     The  holders  of  estates  would  be  obliged  in 
such  case,  either,  in  some  way,  to  restrain  the  right  of  suffrage;  or 
else  such  right  of  suffrage  would,  long  before,  divide  the  property. 
In  the  nature  of  things,  those  who  have  not  property,  and  see  theSr 
neighbours  possess  much  more  than  they  think  them  to  need,  can-N 
not  be  favorable  to  laws  made  for  the  protection  of  property.     When  J 
this  class  becomes  numerous,  it  grows  clamorous.       It  looks   on/ 
property  as  its  prey  and  plunder,  and  is  naturally  ready,  at  all  times, 
for  violence  and  revolution. 

It  would  seem,  then,  to  be  the  part  of  political  wisdom,  to  found 
government  on  property;  and  to  establish  such  distribution  of  properX 
ty,  by  the  laws  which  regulate  its  transmission  and  alienation,  as  to  \ 
interest  the  great  majority  of  society  in  the  support  of  the  govern-/ 
ment.     This  is,  I  imagine,  the  true  theory  and  the  actual  practice 
of  our  republican  institutions.     With  property  divided,  as  we  have 
it,  no  other  government  than  that  of  a  republic  could  be  maintained, 
even  were  we  foolish  enough  to  desire  it.     There  is  reason,  there- 
fore, to  expect  a  long    continuance    of  our  systems.     Party  and 
passion,  doubtless,  may  prevail  at  times,  and  much  temporary  mis- 
chief be  done.     Even  modes  and  forms  may  be  changed,  and  per- 
haps for  the  worse.     But  a  great  revolution,  in  regard  to  property, 
must  take  place,  before  our  governments  can  be  moved  from  their 
republican  basis,  unless  they  be  violently   struck  off  by  military 
power.     The  people  possess  the  property,  more  emphatically  than 
it  could  ever  be  said  of  the  people  of  any  other  country,  and  tljey 
can  have  no  interest  to  overturn  a  government  which  protects  tmJK. 
property  by  equal  laws.  / 

Let  it  not  be   supposed,  that  this  state  of  things  possesses  foo\ 
strong  tendencies  towards  the  production  of  a  dead  and  uninterest-  \ 
ing  level  in  society.      Such  tendencies  are  sufficiently  counteracted     \ 
by  the  infinite  diversities  in  the  characters  and  fortunes  of  individu-       \ 
als.     Talent,  activity,  industry,  and  enterprise  tend  at  all  times  to        / 
produce  inequality  and  distinction;  and  there  is  room  still  for  the    yr 
accumulation  of  wealth,  with  its  great  advantages,  to  all  reasonable/ 
and  useful  extent.     It  has  been  often  urged  against  the  state  of 
society  in  America,  that  it  furnishes  no  class  of  men  of  fortune  and 
leisure.     This  may  be  partly  true,  but  it  is  not  entirely  so,  and  the 
evil,  if  it  be  one,  would  affect  rather  the  progress  of  taste  and  litera- 
ture, than  the  general  prosperity  of  the  people.     But  the  promo- 
tion of  taste  and  literature  cannot  be  primary  objects  of  political 
institutions;  and  if  they  could,  it  might  be  doubted,  whether,  in  the 
long  course  of  things,  as  much  is  not  gained  by  a  wide  diffusion  of 
general  knowledge,   as   is   lost  by  abridging  the  number  of  those 
whom  fortune  and  leisure  enable  to  devote  themselves  exclusively 
to  scientific  and  literary  pursuits.     However  this  may  be,  it  is  to  be. 
considered  that  it  is  the  spirit  of  our  system  to  be  equal,  and  gene-\ 
ral,  and  if  there  be  particular  disadvantages  incident  to  this,  they/ 
are  far  more  than   counterbalanced  by  the  benefits  which   weigan 
against  them.     The  important  concerns  of  society  are   generalf^v 
conducted,  in  all  countries,  by  the  men  of  business  and  practical/ 
7  E 


50 

ability;  and  even  in  matters  of  taste  and  literature,  the  advantages 

y  of  mere  leisure  are  liable  to  be  overrated.     If  there  exist  adequate 

y    means  of  education,   and  the  love  of  letters  be  excited,  that  love 

will  find  its  way  to  the  object  of  its  desire,  through  the  crowd  and 

Npressure  of  the  most  busy  society. 

Connected  with  this  division  of  property,  and  the  consequent 
participation  of  the  great  mass  of  people  in  its  possession  and  en- 
joyments, is  the  system  of  representation,  which  is  admirably  ac- 
commodated to  our  condition,  better  understood  among  us,  and  more 
familiarly  and  extensively  practised,  in  the  higher  and  in  the  lower 
departments  of  government,  than  it  has  been  with  any  other  people. 
Great  facility  has  been  given  to  this  in  New  England  by  the  early 
division  of  the  country  into  townships  or  small  districts,  in  which  all 
concerns  of  local  police  are  regulated,  and  in  which  representatives 
to  the  legislature  are  elected.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  utility  of 
these  little  bodies.  They  are  so  many  councils,  or  parliaments,  in 
which  common  interests  are  discussed,  and  useful  knowledge  ac- 
quired and  communicated. 

The  division  of  governments  into  departments,  and  the  division, 
again,  of  the  legislative  department  into  two  chambers,  are  essen- 
tial provisions  in  our  systems.  This  last,  although  not  new  in  itself, 
yet  seems  to  be  new  in  its  application  to  governments  wholly  popu- 
lar. The  Grecian  republics,  it  is  plain,  knew  nothing  of  it;  and  in 
Rome,  the  check  and  balance  ofv  legislative  power,  such  as  it  was, 
lay  between  the  people  and  the  senate.  Indeed  few  things  are 
more  difficult  than  to  ascertain  accurately  the  true  nature  and  con- 
struction of  the  Roman  commonwealth.  The  relative  power  of  the 
senate  and  the  people,  the  consuls  and  the  tribunes,  appears  not  to 
have  been  at  all  times  the  same,  nor  at  any  time  accurately  defined 
or  strictly  observed.  Cicero,  indeed,  describes  to  us  an  admirable 
arrangement  of  political  power,  and  a  balance  of  the  constitution, 
in  that  beautiful  passage,  in  which  he  compares  the  democracies  of 
Greece  with  the  Roman  commonwealth.  "  O  moron  preclarum,  dis- 
ciplinamque,  quam  a  majoribus  accepimus,  si  quidem  teneremus!  sed 
nescio  quo  pacto  jam  de  manibus  elabitur.  JYidlam  enim  Mi  nostri  sapi- 
enlissimi  et  sanctissimi  viri  vim  concionis  esse  voluerunt,  quae  scisseret 
plebs,  aid  quae  populus  juberet ;  summoia  condone,  distribitiis  partibus, 
tributim,  et  centuriatim,  descriptis  ordinibus,  classibus,  cetafibus,  auditis 
auctoribus,  re  multos  dies  promidgata  et  cognita,  juberi  vetarique  volu- 
erunt.  Graecorum  aidem  totae  respublicae  sedentis  concionis  temeritate 
administrantur ." 

But  at  what  time  this  wise  system  existed  in  this  perfection  at 
Rome,  no  proofs  remain  to  show.  Her  constitution,  originally  fram- 
ed for  a  monarchy,  never  seemed  to  be  adjusted,  in  its  several 
parts,  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings.  Liberty  there  was,  but  it 
was  a  disputatious,  an  uncertain,  an  ill-secured  liberty.  The  patri- 
cian and  plebeian  orders,  instead  of  being  matched  and  joined,  each 
in  its  just  place  and  proportion,  to  sustain  the  fabric  of  the  state, 
were  rather  like  hostile  powers,  in  perpetual  conflict.  With  us,  an 
attempt  has  been  made,  and  so  far  not  without  success,  to  divide 
representation  into  chambers,  and,  by  difference  of  age,  character. 


51 

qualification  or  mode  of  election,  to  establish  salutary  checks,  in 
governments  altogether  elective. 

Having  detained  you  so  long  with  these  observations,  I  must  yet 
advert  to  another  most  interesting  topic,  the  Free  Schools.  In  this 
particular,  New  England  may  be  allowed  to  claim,  I  think,  a  merit 
of  a  peculiar  character.  She  early  adopted  and  has  constantly 
maintained  the  principle,  that  it  is  the  undoubted  right,  and  thfc. 
bounden  duty  of  government,  to  provide  for  the  instruction  of  all^!> 
youth.  That  which  is  elsewhere  left  to  chance,  or  to  charity,  we 
secure  by  law.  For  the  purpose  of  public  instruction,  we  ho>d 
every  man  subject  to  taxation  in  proportion  to  his  property,  and  wer 
look  not  to  the  question,  whether  he  himself  have,  or  have  not, 
children  to  be  benefited  by  the  education  for  which  he  pays.  W\i 
regard  it  as  a  wise  and  liberal  system  of  police,  by  which  property ,\ 
and  life,  and  the  peace  of  society  are  secured.  We  seek  to  pre^ 
vent,  in  some  measure,  the  extension  of  the  penal  code,  by  inspiring 
a  salutary  and  conservative  principle  of  virtue  and  of  knowledge  in 
an  early  age.  We  hope  to  excite  a  feeling  of  respectability,  and  a 
sense  of  character,  by  enlarging  the  capacity,  and  increasing  the 
sphere  of  intellectual  enjoyment.  By  general  instruction,  we  seek, 
as  far  as  possible,  to  purify  the  whole  moral  atmosphere  ;  to  keep 
good  sentiments  uppermost,  and  to  turn  the  strong  current  of  feel- 
ing and  opinion,  as  well  as  the  censures  of  the  law,  and  the  denun- 
ciations of  religion,  against  immorality  and  crime.  We  hope  for  a 
security,  beyond  the  law,  and  above  the  law,  in  the  prevalence  of 
enlightened  and  well-principled  moral  sentiment.  We  hope  to  con- 
tinue and  prolong  the  time,  when,  in  the  villages  and  farm-houses 
of  New  England,  there  may  be  undisturbed  sleep  within  unbarred 
doors.  And  knowing  that  our  government  rests  directly  on  the  pub- 
lic will,  that  we  may  preserve  it,  we  endeavour  to  give  a  safe  and 
proper  direction  to  that  public  will.  We  do  not,  indeed,  expect  all 
men  to  be  philosophers  or  statesmen;  but  we  confidently  trust,  and 
our  expectation  of  the  duration  of  our  system  of  government  rests 
on  that  trust,  that  by  the  diffusion  of  general  knowledge  and  good 
and  virtuous  sentiments,  the  political  fabric  may  be  secure,  as  well 
against  open  violence  and  overthrow,  as  against  the  slow  but  sure 
undermining  of  licentiousness. 

We  know,  that  at  the  present  time,  an  attempt  is  making  in  the 
English  Parliament  to  provide  by  law  for  the  education  of  the  poor, 
and  that  a  gentleman  of  distinguished  character,  (Mr.  Brougham) 
has  taken  the  lead,  in  presenting  a  plan  to  government  for  carrying 
that  purpose  into  effect.  And  yet,  although  the  representatives  of 
the  three  kingdoms  listened  to  him  with  astonishment  as  well  as  de- 
light, we  hear  no  principles,  with  which  we  ourselves  have  not  been 
familiar  from  youth;  we  see  nothing  in  the  plan,  but  an  approach 
towards  that  system  which  has  been  established  in  New  England 
for  more  than  a  century  and  a  half.  It  is  said  that  in  England,  not 
more  than  one  child  in  fifteen  possesses  the  means  of  being  taught  to 
read  and  write;  in  Wales,  one  in  twenty;  in  France,  until  lately 
when  some  improvement  was  made,  not  more  than  one  in  thirty-five, 
Now,  it  is  hardly  too  strong  to  say,  that  in  New  England,  every  chiloT 
possesses  such  means.     It  would  be  difficult  to  find  an  instance  to 


52 

the  contrary,  unless  where  it  should  be  owing  to  the  negligence  of 
the  parent; — and  in  truth  the  means  are  actually  used  and  enjoyed 
by  nearly  every  one. 

A  youth  of  fifteen,  of  either  sex,  who  cannot  both  read  and  write, 
is  very  unfrequently  to  be  found.  Who  can  make  this  comparison, 
or  contemplate  this  spectacle,  without  delight  and  a  feeling  of  just 
pride  ?  Does  any  history  show  property  more-  beneficently  applied  ? 
Did  any  government  ever  subject  the  property  of  those  who  have 
estates,  to  a  burden,  for  a  purpose  more  favorable  to  the  poor,  or 
more  useful  to  the  whole  community? 

A  conviction  of  the  importance  of  public  instruction  was  one  of 
the  earliest  sentiments  of  our  ancestors.  No  lawgiver  of  ancient 
or  modern  times  has  expressed  more  just  opinions,  or  adopted  wiser 
measures,  than  the  early  records  of  the  colony  of  Plymouth  show 
to  have  prevailed  here.  Assembled  on  this  very  spot,  a  hundred 
and  fifty-three  years  ago,  the  legislature  of  this  colony  declared, 
"  For  as  much  as  the  maintenance  of  good  literature  doth  much  tend 
to  the  advancement  of  the  weal  and  flourishing  state  of  societies  and 
vrepublics,  this  court  doth  therefore  order,  that  in  whatever  township 
Vm  this  government,  consisting  of  fifty  families  or  upwards,  any  meet 
Vnan  shall  be  obtained  to  teach  a  grammar  school,  such  township 
Shall  allow  at  least  twelve  pounds,  to  be  raised  by  rate,  on  all  the 
inhabitants." 

Having  provided,  that  all  youth  should  be  instructed  in  the  ele- 
ments of  learning  by  the  institution  of  free  schools,  our  ancestors 
had  yet  another  duty  to  perform.  Men  were  to  be  educated  for  the 
professions,  and  the  public.  For  this  purpose  they  founded  the 
University,  and  with  incredible  zeal  and  perseverance  they  cherish- 
ed and  supported  it,  through  all  trials  and  discouragements.  On 
the  subject  of  the  University,  it  is  not  possible  for  a  son  of  New 
England  to  think  without  pleasure,  nor  to  speak  without  emotion. 
Nothing  confers  more  honor  on  the  state  where  it  is  established,  or 
more  utility  on  the  country  at  large.  A  respectable  University  is 
an  establishment,  which  must  be  the  work  of  time.  If  pecuniary 
means  were  not  wanting,  no  new  institution  could  possess  character 
and  respectability  at  once.  We  owe  deep  obligation  to  our  ances- 
tors, who  began,  almost  on  the  moment  of  their  arrival,  the  work  of 
building  up  this  institution.  < 

Although  established  in  a  different  government,  the  colony  of 
Plymouth  manifested  warm  friendship  for  Harvard  College.  At  an 
early  period,  its  government  took  measures  to  promote  a  general 
subscription  throughout  all  the  towns  in  this  colony,  in  aid  of  its 
small  funds.  Other  colleges  were  subsequently  founded  and  endow- 
ed, in  other  places,  as  the  ability  of  the  people  allowed;  and  we  may 
flatter  ourselves,  that  the  means  of  education,  at  present  enjoyed  in 
New  England,  are  not  only  adequate  to  the  diffusion  of  the  elements 
of  knowledge  among  all  classes,  but  sufficient  also  for  respectable 
attainments  in  literature  and  the  sciences. 

Lastly,  our  ancestors  have  founded  their  system  of  government 
on  morality  and  religious  sentiment.  Moral  habits,  they  believed, 
cannot  safely  be  trusted  on  any  other  foundation  than  religious  prin- 
ciple, nor  any  government  be  secure  which  is  not  supported  by  moral 


53 

habits.  Living  under  the  heavenly  light,  of  revelation,  they  hoped 
to  find  all  the  social  dispositions,  all  the  duties  which  men  owe  to 
each  other  and  to  society,  enforced  and  performed.  Whatever  makes 
men  good  Christians,  makes  them  good  citizens.  Our  fathers  came 
here  to  enjoy  their  religion  free  and  unmolested;  and,  at  the  end  of 
two  centuries,  there  is  nothing  upon  which  we  can  pronounce  more 
confidently,  nothing  of  which  we  can  express  a  more  deep  and  earnest 
conviction,  than  of  the  inestimable  importance  of  that  religion  to 
man,  both  in  regard  to  this  life,  and  that  which  is  to  come. 

If  the  blessings  of  our  political  and  social  condition  have  not  been 
too  highly  estimated,  we  cannot  well  overrate  the  responsibility  and 
duty  which  they  impose  upon  us.  We  hold  these  institutions  of 
government,  religion,  and  learning,  to  be  transmitted,  as  well  as  en- 
joyed. We  are  in  the  line  of  conveyance,  through  which  whatever 
has  been  obtained  by  the  spirit  and  efforts  of  our  ancestors,  is  to  be 
communicated  to  our  children. 

We  are  bound  to  maintain  public  liberty,  and  by  the  example  of 
our  own  systems,  to  convince  the  world,  that  order,  and  law,  relig- 
ion and  morality,  the  rights  of  conscience,  the  rights  of  persons, 
and  the  rights  of  property,  may  all  be  preserved  and  secured,  in  the 
most  perfect  manner,  by  a  government  entirely  and  purely  elective. 
If  we  fail  in  this,  our  disaster  will  be  signal,  and  will  furnish  an  ar- 
gument, stronger  than  has  yet  been  found,  in  support  of  those  opin- 
ions, which  maintain  that  government  can  rest  safely  on  nothing  but 
power  and  coercion.  As  far  as  experience  may  show  errors  in  our 
establishments,  we  are  bound  to  correct  them;  and  if  any  practices 
exist,  contrary  to  the  principles  of  justice  and  humanity,  within  the 
reach  of  our  laws  or  our  influence,  we  are  inexcusable  if  we  do  not 
exert  ourselves  to  restrain  and  abolish  them. 

I  deem  it  my  duty  on  this  occasion  to  suggest,  that  the  land  is  not 
yet  wholly  free  from  the  contamination  of  a  traffic,  at  which  every 
feeling  of  humanity  must  forever  revolt — I  mean  the  African  slave 
trade.  Neither  public  sentiment,  nor  the  law,  has  hitherto  been  able 
entirely  to  put  an  end  to  this  odious  and  abominable  trade.  At  the 
moment  when  God,  in  his  mercy,  has  blessed  the  Christian  world 
with  an  universal  peace,  there  is  reason  to  fear,  that  to  the  disgrace 
of  the  Christian  name  and  character,  new  efforts  are  making  for  the 
extension  of  this  trade,  by  subjects  and  citizens  of  Christian  states, 
in  whose  hearts  no  sentiments  of  humanity  or  justice  inhabits,  and 
over  whom  neither  the  fear  of  God  nor  the  fear  of  man  exercises  a 
control.  In  the  sight  of  our  law,  the  African  slave  trader  is  a  pirate 
and  a  felon;  and  in  the  sight  of  Heaven,  an  offender  far  beyond  the 
ordinary  depth  of  human  guilt.  There  is  no  brighter  part  of  our 
history,  than  that  which  records  the  measures  which  have  been  adopt- 
ed by  the  government,  at  an  early  day,  and  at  different  times  since, 
for  the  suppression  of  this  traffic;  and  I  would  call  on  all  the  true 
sons  of  New  England,  to  co-operate  with  the  laws  of  man,  and  the 
justice  of  Heaven.  If  there  be,  within  the  extent  of  our  knowledge 
or  influence,  any  participation  in  this  traffic,  let  us  pledge  ourselves 
here,  upon  the  rock  of  Plymouth,  to  extirpate  and  destroy  it.  It  is 
not  fit  that  the  land  of  the  Pilgrims  should  bear  the  shame  longer. 
I  hear  the  sound  of  the  hammer,  I  see  the  smoke  of  the  furnaces 

E* 


54 

where  manacles  and  fetters  are  still  forged  for  human  limbs.  I 
see  the  visages  of  those,  who  by  stealth,  and  at  midnight,  labor  in 
this  work  of  hell,  foul  and  dark,  as  may  become  the  artificers  of 
such  instruments  of  misery  and  torture.  Let  that  spot  be  purified, 
or  let  it  cease  to  be  of  New  England.  Let  it  be  purified,  or  let  it 
be  set  aside  from  the  Christian  world;  let  it  be  put  out  of  the  circle 
of  human  sympathies  and  human  regards,  and  let  civilized  man 
henceforth  have  no  communion  with  it. 

I  would  invoke  those  who  fill  the  seats  of  justice,  and  all  who 
minister  at  her  altar,  that  they  execute  the  wholesome  and  necessa- 
ry severity  of  the  law.  I  invoke  the  ministers  of  our  religion,  that 
they  proclaim  its  denunciation  of  these  crimes,  and  add  its  solemn 
sanctions  to  the  authority  of  human  laws.  If  the  pulpit  be  silent, 
whenever,  or  wherever,  there  may  be  a  sinner  bloody  with  this  guilt, 
within  the  hearing  of  its  voice,  the  pulpit  is  false  to  its  trust.  I  call 
on  the  fair  merchant,  who  has  reaped  his  harvest  upon  the  seas, 
that  he  assist  in  scourging  from  those  seas  the  worst  pirates  which 
ever  infested  them.  That  ocean,  which  seems  to  wave  with  a  gen- 
tle magnificence  to  waft  the  burden  of  an  honest  commerce,  and 
to  roll  along  its  treasures  with  a  conscious  pride;  that  ocean,  which 
hardy  industry  regards,  even  when  the  winds  have  ruffled  its  surface, 
as  a  field  of  grateful  toil;  what  is  it  to  the  victim  of  this  oppression, 
when  he  is  brought  to  its  shores,  and  looks  forth  upon  it,  for  the 
first  time,  from  beneath  chains,  and  bleeding  with  stripes?  What 
is  it  to  him,  but  a  wide  spread  prospect  of  suffering,  anguish  and 
death?  Nor  do  the  skies  smile  longer,  nor  is  the  air  longer  fragrant 
to  him.  The  sun  is  cast  down  from  heaven.  An  inhuman  and 
accursed  traffic  has  cut  him  off  in  his  manhood,  or  in  his  youth, 
from  every  enjoyment  belonging  to  his  being,  and  every  blessing 
which  his  Creator  intended  for  him. 

The  Christian  communities  send  forth  their  emissaries  of  religion 
and  letters,  who  stop,  here  and  there,  along  the  coast  of  the  vast 
continent  of  Africa,  and  with  painful  and  tedious  efforts,  make  some 
almost  imperceptible  progress  in  the  communication  of  knowledge, 
and  in  the  general  improvement  of  the  natives  who  are  immediately 
about  them.  Not  thus  slow  and  imperceptible  is  the  transmission 
of  the  vices  and  bad  passions  which  the  subjects  of  Christian  states 
carry  to  the  land.  The  slave  trade  having  touched  the  coast,  its 
influence  and  its  evils  spread,  like  a  pestilence,  over  the  whole  con- 
tinent, making  savage  wars  more  savage,  and  more  frequent,  and 
adding  new  and  fierce  passions  to  the  contests  of  barbarians. 

I  pursue  this  topic  no  further;  except  again  to  say,  that  all  Chris- 
tendom being  now  blessed  with  peace,  is  bound  by  everything  which 
belongs  to  its  character,  and  to  the  character  of  the  present  age,  to 
put  a  stop  to  this  inhuman  and  disgraceful  traffic. 

We  are  bound  not  only  to  maintain  the  general  principles  of  pub- 
lic liberty,  but  to  support  also  those  existing  forms  of  government, 
which  have  so  well  secured  its  enjoyment,  and  so  highly  promoted 
the  public  prosperity.  It  is  now  more  than  thirty  years  that  these 
states  have  been  united  under  the  Federal  constitution,  and  what- 
ever fortune  may  await  them  hereafter,  it  is  impossible  that  this 
period  of  their  history  should  not  be  regarded  as  distinguished  by 


55 

signal  prosperity  and  success.  They  must  be  sanguine,  indeed, 
who  can  hope  for  benefit  from  change.  Whatever  division  of  the 
public  judgment  may  have  existed  in  relation  to  particular  measures 
of  the  government,  all  must  agree,  one  should  think,  in  the  opinion, 
that  in  its  general  course  it  has  been  eminently  productive  of  public 
happiness.  Its  most  ardent  friends  could  not  well  have  hoped  from 
it  more  than  it  has  accomplished;  and  those  who  disbelieved  or 
doubted  ought  to  feel  less  concern  about  predictions,  which  the 
event  has  not  verified,  than  pleasure  in  the  good  which  has  been 
obtained.  Whoever  shall  hereafter  write  this  part  of  our  history, 
although  he  may  see  occasional  errors  or  defects,  will  be  able  to 
record  no  great  failure  in  the  ends  and  objects  of  government. 
Still  less  will  he  be  able  to  record  any  series  of  lawless  and  despot- 
ic acts,  or  any  successful  usurpation.  His  page  will  contain  no 
exhibition  of  provinces  depopulated,  of  civil  authority  habitually 
trampled  down  by  military  power,  or  of  a  community  crushed  by 
the  burden  of  taxation.  He  will  speak,  rather,  of  public  liberty 
protected,  and  public  happiness  advanced;  of  increased  revenue, 
and  population  augmented  beyond  all  example;  of  the  growth  of 
commerce,  manufactures,  and  the  arts;  and  of  that  happy  condition, 
in  which  the  restraint  and  coercion  of  government  are  almost  invisi- 
ble and  imperceptible,  and  its  influence  felt  only  in  the  benefits 
which  it  confers.  We  can  entertain  no  better  wish  for  our  country 
than  that  this  government  may  be  preserved;  nor  have  a  clearer  duty 
than  to  maintain  and  support  it  in  the  full  exercise  of  all  its  just  con- 
stitutional powers. 

The  cause  of  science  and  literature  also  imposes  upon  us  an  im- 
portant and  delicate  trust.  The  wealth  and  population  of  the  coun- 
try are  now  so  far  advanced,  as  to  authorise  the  expectation  of  a 
correct  literature,  and  a  well  formed  taste,  as  well  as  respectable 
progress  in  the  abstruse  sciences.  The  country  has  risen  from  a 
state  of  colonial  dependency;  it  has  established  an  independent  gov- 
ernment, and  is  now  in  the  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  peace  and 
political  security.  The  elements  of  knowledge  are  universally  dif- 
fused, and  the  reading  portion  of  the  community  large.  Let  us  hope 
that  the  present  may  be  an  auspicious  era  of  literature.  If,  almost 
on  the  day  of  their  landing,  our  ancestors  founded  schools  and  en- 
dowed colleges,  what  obligations  do  not  rest  upon  us,  living  under 
circumstances  so  much  more  favorable  both  for  providing  and  for 
using  the  means  of  education  ?  Literature  becomes  free  institutions. 
It  is  the  graceful  ornament  of  civil  liberty,  and  a  happy  restraint  on 
the  asperities,  which  political  controversy  sometimes  occasions. 
Just  taste  is  not  only  an  embellishment  of  society,  but  it  rises  almost 
to  the  rank  of  the  virtues,  and  diffuses  positive  good  throughout  the 
whole  extent  of  its  influence.  There  is  a  connexion  between  right 
feeling  and  right  principles,  and  truth  in  taste  is  allied  with  truth  in 
morality.  With  nothing  in  our  past  history  to  discourage  us,  and 
with  something  in  our  present  condition  and  prospects  to  animate  us, 
let  us  hope,  that  as  it  is  our  fortune  to  live  in  an  age  when  we  may 
behold  a  wonderful  advancement  of  the  country  in  all  its  other  great 
interests,  we  may  see  also  equal  progress  and  success  attend  the 
cause  of  letters. 


56 

Finally,  let  us  not  forget  the  religious  character  of  our  origin. 
Our  fathers  were  brought  hither  by  their  high  veneration  for  the 
Christian  religion.  They  journeyed  by  its  light,  and  labored  in  its 
hope.  They  sought  to  incorporate  its  principles  with  the  elements 
of  their  society,  and  to  diffuse  its  influence  through  all  their  institu- 
tions, civil,  political,  or  literary.  Let  us  cherish  these  sentiments, 
and  extend  this  influence  still  more  widely;  in  the  full  conviction, 
that  that  is  the  happiest  society,  which  partakes  in  the  highest  de- 
gree of  the  mild  and  peaceable  spirit  of  Christianity. 

The  hours  of  this  day  are  rapidly  flying,  and  this  occasion  will 
soon  be  passed.  Neither  we  nor  our  children  can  expect  to  behold 
its  return.  They  are  in  the  distant  regions  of  futurity,  they  exist 
only  in  the  all-creating  power  of  God,  who  shall  stand  here,  a  hun- 
dred years  hence,  to  trace,  through  us,  their  descent  from  the  Pil- 
grims, and  to  survey,  as  we  have  now  surveyed,  the  progress  of  their 
country,  during  the  lapse  of  a  century.  We  would  anticipate  their 
concurrence  with  us  in  our  sentiments  of  deep  regard  for  our  com- 
mon ancestors.  We  would  anticipate  and  partake  the  pleasure  with 
which  they  will  then  recount  the  steps  of  New  England's  advance- 
ment. On  the  morning  of  that  day,  although  it  will  not  disturb  us 
in  our  repose,  the  voice  of  acclamation  and  gratitude,  commencing 
on  the  Rock  of  Plymouth,  shall  be  transmitted  through  millions  of 
the  sons  of  the  Pilgrims,  till  it  lose  itself  in  the  murmurs  of  the 
Pacific  seas. 

We  would  leave  for  the  consideration  of  those  who  shall  then  oc- 
cupy our  places,  some  proof  that  we  hold  the  blessings  transmitted 
from  our  fathers  in  just  estimation;  some  proof  of  our  attachment  to 
the  cause  of  good  government,  and  of  civil  and  religious  liberty; 
some  proof  of  a  sincere  and  ardent  desire  to  promote  everything 
which  may  enlarge  the  understandings  and  improve  the  hearts  of 
men.  And  when,  from  the  long  distance  of  an  hundred  years,  they 
shall  look  back  upon  us,  they  shall  know,  at  least,  that  we  possessed 
affections,  which,  running  backward,  and  warming  with  gratitude 
for  what  our  ancestors  have  done  for  our  happiness,  run  forward  al- 
so to  our  posterity,  and  meet  them  with  cordial  salutation,  ere  yet 
they  have  arrived  on  the  shore  of  being. 

Advance,  then,  ye  future  generations!  We  would  hail  you,  as  you 
rise  in  your  long  succession,  to  fill  the  places  which  we  now  fill,  and 
to  taste  the  blessings  of  existence,  where  we  are  passing,  and  soon 
shall  have  passed,  our  own  human  duration.  We  bid  you  welcome 
to  this  pleasant  land  of  the  fathers.  We  bid  you  welcome  to  the 
healthful  skies  and  the  verdant  fields  of  New  England.  We  greet 
your  accession  to  the  great  inheritance  which  we  have  enjoyed. 
We  welcome  you  to  the  blessings  of  good  government,  and  religious 
liberty.  We  welcome  you  to  the  treasures  of  science,  and  the  de- 
lights of  learning.  We  welcome  you  to  the  transcendent  sweets  of 
domestic  life,  to  the  happiness  of  kindred,  and  parents,  and  children. 
We  welcome  you  to  the  immeasurable  blessings  of  rational  existence, 
the  immortal  hope  of  Christianity,  and  the  light  of  everlasting  truth' 


ADDRESS 


DELIVERED  AT  THE  LAYING  OF  THE  CORNER  STONE  OF  THE  BUN 
KER  HILL  MONUMENT.   JUNE  17,  1825 


This  uncounted  multitude  before  me,  and  around  me,  proves  the 
feeling  which  the  occasion  has  excited.  These  thousands  of  human 
faces,  glowing  with  sympathy  and  joy,  and,  from  the  impulses  of  a 
common  gratitude,  turned  reverently  to  heaven,  in  this  spacious 
temple  of  the  firmament,  proclaim  that  the  day,  the  place,  and  the 
purpose  of  our  assembling  have  made  a  deep  impression  on  our 
hearts. 

If,  indeed,  there  be  anything  in  local  association  fit  to  affect  the 
mind  of  man,  we  need  not  strive  to  repress  the  emotions  which  agi- 
tate us  here.  We  are  among  the  sepulchres  of  our  fathers.  We 
are  on  ground,  distinguished  by  their  valor,  their  constancy,  and  the 
shedding  of  their  blood.  We  are  here,  not  to  fix  an  uncertain  date 
in  our  annals,  nor  to  draw  into  notice  an  obscure  and  unknown 
spot.  If  our  humble  purpose  had  never  been  conceived,  if  we  our- 
selves had  never  been  born,  the  17th  of  June  1775  would  have  been 
a  day  on  which  all  subsequent  history  would  have  poured  its  light, 
and  the  eminence  where  we  stand,  a  point  of  attraction  to  the  eyes 
of  successive  generations.  But  we  are  Americans.  We  live  in 
what  may  be  called  the  early  age  of  this  great  continent;  and  we 
know  that  our  posterity,  through  all  time,  are  here  to  suffer  and  en- 
joy the  allotments  of  humanity.  We  see  before  us  a  propable  train 
of  great  events;  we  know  that  our  own  fortunes  have  been  happily 
cast;  and  it  is  natural,  therefore,  that  we  should  be  moved  by  the 
contemplation  of  occurrences  which  have  guided  our  destiny  before 
many  of  us  were  born,  and  settled  the  condition  in  which  we  should 
pass  that  portion  of  our  existence,  which  God  allows  to  men  on  earth. 

We  do  not  read  even  of  the  discovery  of  this  continent,  without 
feeling  something  of  a  personal  interest  in  the  event;  without  being 
reminded  how  much  it  has  affected  our  own  fortunes,  and  our  own 
existence.  It  is  more  impossible  for  us,  therefore,  than  for  others, 
to  contemplate  with  unaffected  minds  that  interesting,  I  may  say, 
that  most  touching  and  pathetic  scene,  when  the  great  Discoverer 
of  America  stood  on  the  deck  of  his  shattered  bark,  the  shades  of 
night  falling  on  the  sea,  yet  no  man  sleeping;  tossed  on  the  billows 
8 


58 

of  an  unknown  ocean,  yet  the  stronger  billows  of  alternate  hope  and 
despair  tossing  his  own  troubled  thoughts;  extending  forward  his 
harassed  frame,  straining  westward  his  anxious  and  eager  eyes,  till 
Heaven  at  last  granted  him  a  moment  of  rapture  and  ecstasy,  in 
blessing  his  vision  with  the  sight  of  the  unknown  world. 

Nearer  to  our  times,  more  closely  connected  with  our  fates,  and 
therefore  still  more  interesting  to  our  feelings  and  affections,  is  the 
settlement  of  our  own  country  by  colonists  from  England.  We 
cherish  every  memorial  of  these  worthy  ancestors;  we  celebrate 
their  patience  and  fortitude;  we  admire  their  daring  enterprise;  we 
teach  our  children  to  venerate  their  piety;  and  we  are  justly  proud 
of  being  descended  from  men,  who  have  set  the  world  an  example 
of  founding  civil  institutions  on  the  great  and  united  principles  of 
human  freedom  and  human  knowledge.  To  us,  their  children,  the 
story  of  their  labors  and  sufferings  can  never  be  without  its  interest. 
We  shall  not  stand  unmoved  on  the  shore  of  Plymouth,  while  the 
sea  continues  to  wash  it;  nor  will  our  brethren  in  another  early  and 
ancient  colony,  forget  the  place  of  its  first  establishment,  till  their 
river  shall  cease  to  flow  by  it.  No  vigor  of  youth,  no  maturity  of 
manhood,  will  lead  the  nation  to  forget  the  spots  where  its  infancy 
was  cradled  and  defended. 

But  the  great  event,  in  the  history  of  the  continent,  which  we  are 
now  met  here  to  commemorate ;  that  prodigy  of  modern  times,  at 
once  the  wonder  and  the  blessing  of  the  world,  is  the  American 
Revolution.  In  a  day  of  extraordinary  prosperity  and  happiness, 
of  high  national  honor,  distinction,  and  power,  we  are  brought  to- 
gether, in  this  place,  by  our  love  of  country,  by  our  admiration  of 
exalted  character,  by  our  gratitude  for  signal  services  and  patriotic 
devotion. 

The  society,  whose  organ  I  am,  was  formed  for  the  purpose  of 
rearing  some  honorable  and  durable  monument  to  the  memory  of 
the  early  friends  of  American  Independence.  They  have  thought, 
that  for  this  object  no  time  could  be  more  propitious,  than  the  pres- 
ent prosperous  and  peaceful  period;  that  no  place  could  claim  pref- 
erence over  this  memorable  spot;  and  that  no  day  could  be  more 
auspicious  to  the  undertaking,  than  the  anniversary  of  the  battle 
which  was  here  fought.  The  foundation  of  that  monument  we  have 
now  laid.  With  solemnities  suited  to  the  occasion,  with  prayers  to 
Almighty  God  for  his  blessing,  and  in  the  midst  of  this  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses, we  have  begun  the  work.  We  trust  it  will  be  prosecuted, 
and  that  springing  from  a  broad  foundation,  rising  high  in  massive 
solidity  and  unadorned  grandeur,  it  may  remain,  as  long  as  Heaven 
permits  the  works  of  man  to  last,  a  fit  emblem,  both  of  the  events 
in  memory  of  which  it  is  raised,  and  of  the  gratitude  of  those  who 
have  reared  it. 

We  know,  indeed,  that  the  record  of  illustrious  actions  is  most 
safely  deposited  in  the  universal  remembrance  of  mankind.  We 
know,  that  if  we  could  cause  this  structure  to  ascend,  not  only  till 
it  reached  the  skies,  but  till  it  pierced  them,  its  broad  surfaces  could 
still  contain  but  part  of  that,  which,  in  an  age  of  knowledge,  hath 
already  been  spread  over  the  earth3  and  which  history  charges  itself 


59 

with  making  known  to  all  future  times.  We  know,  that  no  inscrip- 
tion on  entablatures  less  broad  than  the  earth  itself,  can  carry  infor- 
mation of  the  events  we  commemorate,  where  it  has  not  already 
gone;  and  that  no  structure,  which  shall  not  outlive  the  duration  of 
letters  and  knowledge  among  men,  can  prolong  the  memorial.  But  \ 
our  object  is,  by  this  edifice  to  show  our  own  deep  sense  of  the  val-/ 
ue  and  importance  of  the  achievements  of  our  ancestors;  and,  by/ 
presenting  this  work  of  gratitude  to  the  eye,  to  keep  alive  similar  7 
sentiments,  and  to  foster  a  constant  regard  for  the  principles  of  the  \ 
Revolution.  Human  beings  are  composed  not  of  reason  only,  but  J 
of  imagination  also,  and  sentiment;  and  that  is  neither  wasted  nor 
misapplied  which  is  appropriated  to  the  purpose  of  giving  right  di- 
rection to  sentiments,  and  opening  proper  springs  of  feeling  in  the 
heart.  Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  our  object  is  to  perpetuate  na- 
tional hostility,  or  even  to  cherish  a  mere  military  spirit.  It  is  high- 
er, purer,  nobler.  We  consecrate  our  work  to  the  spirit  of  national 
independence,  and  we  wish  that  the  light  of  peace  may  rest  upon  it 
forever.  We  rear  a  memorial  of  our  conviction  of  that  unmeasured 
benefit,  which  has  been  conferred  on  our  own  land,  and  of  the  hap- 
py influences,  which  have  been  produced,  by  the  same  events,  on 
the  general  interests  of  mankind.  We  come,  as  Americans,  to  mark 
a  spot,  which  must  forever  be  dear  to  us  and  our  posterity.  We 
wish,  that  whosoever,  in  all  coming  time,  shall  turn  his  eye  hither, 
may  behold  that  the  place  is  not  undistinguished,  where  the  first 
great  battle  of  the  Revolution  was  fought.  We  wish,  that  this  struc- 
ture may  proclaim  the  magnitude  and  importance  of  that  event,  to 
every  class  and  every  age.  We  wish,  that  infancy  may  learn  the 
purpose  of  its  erection  from  maternal  lips,  and  that  weary  and  with- 
ered age  may  behold  it,  and  be  solaced  by  the  recollections  which 
it  suggests.  We  wish,  that  labor  may  look  up  here,  and  be  proud, 
in  the  midst  of  its  toil.  We  wish,  that,  in  those  days  of  disaster, 
which,  as  they  come  on  all  nations,  must  be  expected  to  come  on  us 
also,  desponding  patriotism  may  turn  its  eyes  hitherward,  and  be 
assured  that  the  foundations  of  our  national  power  still  stand  strong. 
We  wish,  that  this  column,  rising  towards  heaven  among  the  point- 
ed spires  of  so  many  temples  dedicated  to  God,  may  contribute  also 
to.  produce,  in  all  minds,  a  pious  feeling  of  dependence  and  gratitude. 
We  wish,  finally,  that  the  last  object  on  the  sight  of  him  who  leaves 
his  native  shore,  and  the  first  to  gladden  his  who  revisits  it,  may  be 
something  which  shall  remind  him  of  the  liberty  and  the  glory  of 
his  country.  Let  it  rise,  till  it  meet  the  sun  in  his  coming;  let  the 
earliest  light  of  the  morning  gild  it,  and  parting  day  linger  and  play 
on  its  summit. 

We  live  in  a  most  extraordinary  age.  Events  so  various  and  so 
important,  that  they  might  crowd  and  distinguish  centuries,  are,  in 
our  times,  compressed  within  the  compass  of  a  single  life.  When 
has  it  happened  that  history  has  had  so  much  to  record,  in  the  same 
term  of  years,  as  since  the  17th  of  June  1775?  Our  own  Revolu- 
tion, which,  under  other  circumstances,  might  itself  have  been  ex- 
pected to  occasion  a  war  of  half  a  century,  has  been  achieved; 
twenty-four  sovereign  and  independent  states  erected;  and  a  general 


government  established  over  them,  so  safe,  so  wise,  so  free,  so  prac- 
tical, that  we  might  well  wonder  its  establishment  should  have  been 
accomplished  so  soon,  were  it  not  far  the  greater  wonder  that  i* 
should  have  been  established  at  all.  Two  or  three  millions  of  peo- 
ple have  been  augmented  to  twelve;  and  the  great  forests  of  the 
West  prostrated  beneath  the  arm  of  successful  industry;  and  the 
dwellers  on  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi,  become  the 
fellow  citizens  and  neighbours  of  those  who  cultivate  the  hills  of 
New  England.  We  have  a.  commerce,  that  leaves  no  sea  unex- 
plored; navies,  which  take  no  law  from  superior  force;  revenues, 
adequate  to  all  the  exigencies  of  government,  almost  without  taxa- 
tion; and  peace  with  all  nations,  founded  on  equal  rights  and  mutual 
respect. 

Europe,  within  the  same  period,  has  been  agitated  by  a  mighty 
revolution,  which,  while  it  has  been  felt  in  the  individual  condition 
and  happiness  of  almost  every  man,  has  shaken  to  the  centre  her 
political  fabric,  and  dashed  against  one  another  thrones,  which  had 
stood  tranquil  for  ages.  On  this,  our  continent,  our  own  example 
has  been  followed;  and  colonies  have  sprung  up  to  be  nations.  Un- 
accustomed sounds  of  liberty  and  free  government  have  reached  us 
from  beyond  the  track  of  the  sun;  and  at  this  moment  the  dominion 
of  European  power,  in  this  continent,  from  the  place  where  we  stand 
to  the  south  pole,  is  annihilated  forever. 

In  the  meantime,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  such  has  been 
the  general  progress  of  knowledge;  such  the  improvements  in  leg- 
islation, in  commerce,  in  the  arts,  in  letters,  and  above  all  in  liberal 
ideas,  and  the  general  spirit  of  the  age,  that  the  whole  world  seems 
changed. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  that  this  is  but  a  faint  abstract  of  the  things 
which  have  happened  since  the  day  of  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  we 
are  but  fifty  years  removed  from  it;  and  we  now  stand  here,  to  en- 
joy all  the  blessings  of  our  own  condition,  and  to  look  dbroad  on 
the  brightened  prospects  of  the  world,  while  we  hold  still  among  us 
some  of  those,  who  were  active  agents  in  the  scenes  of  1775,  and 
who  are  now  here,  from  every  quarter  of  New  England,  to  visit, 
once  more,  and  under  circumstances  so  affecting,  I  had  almost  said 
so  overwhelming,  this  renowned  theatre  of  their  courage  and  patri 
otism. 

.*•  Venerable  men!  you  have  come  down  to  us,  from  a  former  gen- 
eration. Heaven  has  bounteously  lengthened  out  your  lives,  that 
you  might  behold  this  joyous  day.  You  are  now,  where  you  stood, 
fifty  years  ago,  this  very  hour,  with  your  brothers,  and  your  neigh- 
bours, shoulder  to  shoulder,  in  the  strife  for  your  country.  Behold, 
how  altered!  The  same  heavens  are  indeed  over  your  heads;  the 
same  ocean  rolls  at  your  feet;  but  all  else,  how  changed!  You  hear 
now  no  roar  of  hostile  cannon,  you  see  no  mixed  volumes  of  smoke 
and  flame  rising  from  burning  Charlestown.  The  ground  strowed 
with  the  dead  and  the  dying;  the  impetuous  charge;  the  steady  and 
successful  repulse;  the  loud  call  to  repeated  assault;  the  summon- 
ing of  all  that  is  manly  to  repeated  resistance;  a  thousand  bosoms 
freely  and  fearlessly  bared  in  an  instant  to  whatever  of  terror  there 


61 
S 

may  be  in  war  and  death; — all  these  you  have  witnessed,  but  you 
witness  them  no  more.  All  is  peace.  The  heights  of  yonder  me- 
tropolis, its  towers  and  roofs,  which  you  then  saw  filled  with  wives 
and  children  and  countrymen  in  distress  and  terror,  and  looking 
with  unutterable  emotions  for  the  issue  of -the  combat,  have  presented 
you  to-day  with  the  sight  of  its  whole  happy  population,  come  out 
to  welcome  and  greet  you  with  an  universal  jubilee.^  Yonder  proud 
ships,  by  a  felicity  of  position  appropriately  lying  arxhe  foot  of  this 
mount,  and  seeming  fondly  to  cling  around  it,  are  not  means  of  an- 
noyance to  you,  but  your  country's  own  means  of  distinction  and 
defence.  All  is  peace;  and  God  has  granted  you  this  sight  of  your 
country's  happiness,  ere  you  slumber  in  the  grave  forever.  He  has 
allowed  you  to  behold  and  to  partake  the  reward  of  your  patriotic 
toils;  and  he  has  allowed  us,  your  sons  and  countrymen,  to  meet 
you  here,  and  in  the  name  of  the  present  generation,  in  the  name 
of  your  country,  in  the  name  of  liberty,  to  thank  you! 

But,  alas!  you  are  not  all  here!  Time  and  the  sword  have  thin- 
ned your  ranks.  Prescott,  Putnam,  Stark,  Brooks,  Read,  Pome- 
roy,  Bridge!  our  eyes  seek  for  you  in  vain  amidst  this  broken  band. 
You  are  gathered  to  your  fathers,  and  live  only  to  your  country  in 
her  grateful  remembrance,  and  your  own  bright  example.  But  let 
us  not  too  much  grieve,  that  you  have  met  the  common  fate  of  men. 
You  lived,  at  least,  long  enough  to  know  that  your  work  had  been 
nobly  and  successfully  accomplished.  You  lived  to  see  your  coun- 
try's independence  established,  and  to  sheathe  your  swords  from 
war.  On  the  light  of  Liberty  you  saw  arise  the  light  of  Peace, 
like  ,      ., 

1  another  morn, 
Risen  on  raid-noon  ; ' — 

and  the  sky,  on  which  you  closed  your  eyes,  was  cloudless. 

But — ah! — Him!  the  first  great  Martyr  in  this  great  cause! 
Him!  the  premature  victim  of  his  own  self-devoting  heart!  Him! 
the  head  of  our  civil  councils,  and  the  destined  leader  of  our  mili- 
tary bands;  whom  nothing  brought  hither,  but  the  unquenchable 
fire  of  his  own  spirit;  Him!  cut  off  by  Providence,  in  the  hour  of 
overwhelming  anxiety  and  thick  gloom;  falling,  ere  he  saw  the  star 
of  his  country  rise;  pouring  out  his  generous  blood,  like  water,  be- 
fore he  knew  whether  it  would  fertilize  a  land  of  freedom  or  of  bon- 
dage! how  shall  I  struggle  with  the  emotions,  that  stifle  the  utter- 
ance of  thy  name! — Our  poor  work  may  perish;  but  thine  shall 
endure!  This  monument  may  moulder  away;  the  solid  ground  it 
rests  upon  may  sink  down  to  a  level  with  the  sea;  but  thy  memory 
shall  not  fail!  Wheresoever  among  men  a  heart  shall  be  found, 
that  beats  to  the  transports  of  patriotism  and  liberty,  its  aspirations 
shall  be  to  claim  kindred  with  thy  spirit ! 

But  the  scene  amidst  which  we  stand  does  not  permit  us  to  con- 
fine our  thoughts  or  our  sympathies  to  those  fearless  spirits,  who 
hazarded  or  lost  their  lives  on  this  consecrated  spot.  We  have  the 
happiness  to  rejoice  here  in  the  presence  of  a  most  worthy  repre- 
sentation of  the  survivors  of  the  whole  Revolutionary  Army. 


V 


62 

Veterans!  you  are  the  remnant  of  many  a  well  fought  field. 
You  bring  with  you  marks  of  honor  from  Trenton  and  Monmouth, 
from  Yorktown,  Camden,  Bennington,  and  Saratoga.  Veterans 
of  half  a  century!  when  in  your  youthful  days,  you  put  everything 
at  hazard  in  your  country's  cause,  good  as  that  cause  was,  and  san- 
guine as  youth  is,  still  your  fondest  hopes  did  not  stretch  onward  to  an 
hour  like  this!  At  a  period  to  which  you  could  not  reasonably  have 
expected  to  arrive;  at  a  moment  of  national  prosperity,  such  as  you 
could  never  have  foreseen,  you  are  now  met,  here,  to  enjoy  the  fel- 
lowship of  old  soldiers,  and  to  receive  the  overflowings  of  an  univer- 
sal gratitude. 

But  your  agitated  countenances  and  your  heaving  breasts  inform 
me  that  even  this  is  not  an  unmixed  joy.  I  perceive  that  a  tumult 
of  contending  feelings  rushes  upon  you.  The  images  of  the  dead, 
as  well  as  the  persons  of  the  living,  throng  to  your  embraces.  The 
scene  overwhelms  you,  and  I  turn  from  it.  May  the  Father  of  all 
mercies  smile  upon  your  declining  years,  and  bless  them!  And 
when  you  shall  here  have  exchanged  your  embraces;  when  you 
shall  once  more  have  pressed  the  hands  which  have  been  so  often 
extended  to  give  succour  in  adversity,  or  grasped  in  the  exultation 
of  victory;  then  look  abroad  into  this  lovely  land,  which  your  young 
valor  defended,  and  mark  the  happiness  with  which  it  is  filled;  yea, 
look  abroad  into  the  whole  earth,  and  see  what  a  name  you  have 
contributed  to  give  to  your  country,  and  what  a  praise  you  have 
added  to  freedom,  and  then  rejoice  in  the  sympathy  and  gratitude, 
which  beam  upon  your  last  days  from  the  improved  condition  of 
mankind. 

The  occasion  does  not  require  of  me  any  particular  account  of 
the  battle  of  the  17th  of  June,  nor  any  detailed  narrative  of  the 
events  which  immediately  preceded  it.  These  are  familiarly  known 
to  all.  In  the  progress  of  the  great  and  interesting  controversy, 
Massachusetts  and  the  town  of  Boston  had  become  early  and  marked 
objects  of  the  displeasure  of  the  British  Parliament.  This  had 
been  manifested,  in  the  Act  for  altering  the  Government  of  the 
Province,  and  in  that  for  shutting  up  the  Port  of  Boston.  Nothing 
sheds  more  honor  on  our  early  history,  and  nothing  better  shows 
how  little  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  the  colonies  were  known 
or  regarded  in  England,  than  the  impression  which  these  measures 
everywhere  produced  in  America.  It  had  been  anticipated,  that 
while  the  other  colonies  would  be  terrified  by  the  severity  of  the 
punishment  inflicted  on  Massachusetts,  the  other  seaports  would  be 
governed  by  a  mere  spirit  of  gain;  and  that,  as  Boston  was  now  cut  off 
from  all  commerce,  the  unexpected  advantage,  which  this  blow  on 
her  was  calculated  to  confer  on  other  towns,  would  be  greedily  en- 
joyed. How  miserably  such  reasoners  deceived  themselves!  How 
little  they  knew  of  the  depth,  and  the  strength,  and  the  intenseness 
of  that  feeling  of  resistance  to  illegal  acts  of  power,  which  posses- 
sed the  whole  American  people!  Everywhere  the  unworthy  boon 
was  rejected  with  scorn.  The  fortunate  occasion  was  seized,  every- 
where, to  show  to  the  whole  world,  that  the  colonies  were  swayed  by 
no  local  interest,  no  partial  interest,  no  selfish  interest.     The  tempt- 


63 

ation  to  profit  by  the  punishment  of  Boston  was  strongest  to  our 
neighbours  of  Salem.  Yet  Salem  was  precisely  the  place,  where 
this  miserable  proffer  was  spurned,  in  a  tone  of  the  most  lofty  self- 
respect,  and  the  most  indignant  patriotism.  "  We  are  deeply  affect- 
ed," said  its  inhabitants,  "  with  the  sense  of  our  public  calamities; 
but  the  miseries  that  are  now  rapidly  hastening  on  our  brethren  in 
the  capital  of  the  Province,  greatly  excite  our  commiseration.  By  \^ 
shutting  up  the  port  of  Boston,  some  imagine  that  the  course  of  trade 
might  be  turned  hither  and  to  our  benefit;  but  we  must  be  dead  to 
every  idea  of  justice,  lost  to  all  feelings  of  humanity,  could  we  in- 
dulge a  thought  to  seize  on  wealth,  and  raise  our  fortunes  on  the  ruin 
of  our  suffering  neighbours."  These  noble  sentiments  were  not 
confined  to  our  immediate  vicinity.  In  that  day  of  general  affection 
and  brotherhood,  the  blow  given  to  Boston  smote  on  every  patriotic 
heart,  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other  Virginia  and  the 
Carolinas,  as  well  as  Connecticut  and  New  Hampshire,  felt  and 
proclaimed  the  cause  to  be  their  own.  The  Continental  Congress, 
then  holding  its  first  session  in  Philadelphia,  expressed  its  sympathy 
for  the  suffering  inhabitants  of  Boston,  and  addresses  were  received 
from  all  quarters,  assuring  them  that  the  cause  was  a  common  one, 
and  should  be  met  by  common  efforts  and  common  sacrifices.  The 
Congress  of  Massachusetts  responded  to  these  assurances;  and  in  an 
address  to  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia,  bearing  the  official  signa- 
ture, perhaps  among  the  last,  of  the  immortal  Warren,  notwithstand- 
ing the  severity  of  its  suffering  and  the  magnitude  of  the  dangers 
which  threatened  it,  it  was  declared,  that  this  colony  "  is  ready,  at 
all  times,  to  spend  and  to  be  spent  in  the  cause  of  America." 

But  the  hour  drew  nigh,  which  was  to  put  professions  to  the  proof, 
and  to  determine  whether  the  authors  of  these  mutual  pledges  were 
ready  to  seal  them  in  blood.  The  tidings  of  Lexington  and  Concord 
had  no  sooner  spread,  than  it  was  universally  felt,  that  the  time  was 
at  last  come  for  action.  A  spirit  pervaded  all  ranks,  not  transient, 
not  boisterous,  but  deep,  solemn,  determined, 

"  totumque  infusa  per  artus 
Mens  agitat  molein,  et  magno  se  corpore  miscet." 

War,  on  their  own  soil  and  at  their  own  doors,  was,  indeed,  a 
strange  work  to  the  yeomanry  of  New  England;  but  their  consciences 
were  convinced  of  its  necessity,  their  country  called  them  to  it,  and 
they  did  not  withhold  themselves  from  the  perilous  trial.  The  ordi- 
nary occupations  of  life  were  abandoned;  the  plough  was  staid  in  the 
unfinished  furrow;  wives  gave  up  their  husbands,  and  mothers  gave 
up  their  sons,  to  the  battles  of  a  civil  war.  Death  might  come,  in 
honor,  on  the  field;  it  might  come,  in  disgrace,  on  the  scaffold.  Foi 
either  and  for  both  they  were  prepared.  The  sentiment  of  Quincy 
was  full  in  their  hearts.  "  Blandishments,"  said  that  distinguished 
son  of  genius  and  patriotism,  "  will  not  fascinate  us,  nor  will  threats 
of  a  halter  intimidate;  for,  under  God,  we  are  determined,  that  where- 
soever, whensoever,  or  howsoever  we  shall  be  called  to  make  our 
exit,  we  will  die  free  men." 

The  17th  of  June  saw  the  four  New  England  colonies  standing 
here,  side  by  side,  to  triumph  or  to  fall  together;  and  there  was  with 


J 


64 

them  from  that  moment  to  the  end  of  the  war,  what  I  hope  will  re- 
main with  them  forever,  one  cause,  one  country,  one  heart. 

The  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was  attended  with  the  most  important 
effects  beyond  its  immediate  result  as  a  military  engagement.  It 
created  at  once  a  state  of  open,  public  war.  There  could  now  be 
no  longer  a  question  of  proceeding  against  individuals,  as  guilty  of 
treason  or  rebellion.  That  fearful  crisis  was  past.  The  appeal  now 
lay  to  the  sword,  and  the  only  question  was,  whether  the  spirit  and 
the  resources  of  the  people  would  hold  out,  till  the  object  should  be 
accomplished.  Nor  were  its  general  consequences  confined  to  our 
own  country.  The  previous  proceedings  of  the  colonies,  their  ap- 
peals, resolutions,  and  addresses,  had  made  their  cause  known  to 
Europe.  Without  boasting,  we  may  say,  that  in  no  age  or  country, 
has  the  public  cause  been  maintained  with  more  force  of  argument, 
more  power  of  illustration,  or  more  of  that  persuasion  which  excited 
feeling  and  elevated  principle  can  alone  bestow,  than  the  revolution- 
ary state  papers  exhibit.  These  papers  will  forever  deserve  to  be 
studied,  not  only  for  the  spirit  which  they  breathe,  but  for  the  ability 
with  which  they  were  written. 

To  this  able  vindication  of  their  cause,  the  colonies  had  now  ad- 
ded a  practical  and  severe  proof  of  their  own  true  devotion  to  it, 
and  evidence  also  of  the  power  which  they  could  bring  to  its  support. 
All  now  saw,  that  if  America  fell,  she  would  not  fall  without  a  strug- 
gle. Men  felt  sympathy  and  regard,  as  well  as  surprise,  when  they 
beheld  these  infant  states,  remote,  unknown,  unaided,  encounter  the 
power  of  England,  and  in  the  first  considerable  battle,  leave  more 
of  their  enemies  dead  on  the  field,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
combatants,  than  they  had  recently  known  in  the  wars  of  Europe. 

Information  of  these  events,  circulating  through  Europe,  at  length 
reached  the  ears  of  one  who  now  hears  me.  He  has  not  forgotten 
the  emotion,  which  the  fame  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  the  name  of  Warren, 
excited  in  his  youthful  breast. 

Sir,  we  are  assembled  to  commemorate  the  establishment  of  gr#at 
public  principles  of  liberty,  and  to  do  honor  to  the  distinguished 
dead.  The  occasion  is  too  severe  for  eulogy  to  the  living.  But, 
sir,  your  interesting  relation  to  this  country,  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances which  surround  you  and  surround  us,  call  on  me  to  express 
the  happiness  which  we  derive  from  your  presence  and  aid  in  this 
solemn  commemoration. 

Fortunate,  fortunate  man!  with  what  measure  of  devotion  will  you 
not  thank  God,  for  the  circumstances  of  your  extraordinary  life! 
You  are  connected  with  both  hemispheres  and  with  two  generations. 
Heaven  saw  fit  to  ordain,  that  the  electric  spark  of  Liberty  should 
be  conducted,  through  you,  from  the  new  world  to  the  old;  and  we, 
who  are  now  here  to  perform  this  duty  of  patriotism,  have  all  of  us 
long  ago  received  it  in  charge  from  our  fathers  to  cherish  your  name 
and  your  virtues.  You  will  account  it  an  instance  of  your  good  for- 
tune, sir,  that  you  crossed  the  seas  to  visit  us  at  a  time  which  ena- 
bles you  to  be  present  at  this  solemnity.  You  now  behold  the  field, 
the  renown  of  which  reached  you  in  the  heart  of  France,  and  caus- 
ed a  thrill  in  your  ardent  bosom.     You  see  the  lines  of  the  little 


65 

redoubt  thrown  up  by  the  incredible  diligence  of  Prescott;  defended, 
to  the  last  extremity,  by  his  lion-hearted  valor;  and  within  which  the 
corner  stone  of  our  monument  has  now  taken  its  position.  You  see 
where  Warren  fell,  and  where  Parker,  Gardner,  McCleary,  Moore, 
and  other  early  patriots  fell  with  him.  Those  who  survived  that 
day,  and  whose  lives  have  been  prolonged  to  the  present  hour,  are 
now  around  you.  Some  of  them  you  have  known  in  the  trying 
scenes  of  the  war.  Behold!  they  now  stretch  forth  their  feeble 
arms  to  embrace  you.  Behold!  they  raise  their  trembling  voices 
to  invoke  the  blessing  of  God  on  you,  and  yours,  forever. 

Sir,  you  have  assisted  us  in  laying  the  foundation  of  this  edifice. 
You  have  heard  us  rehearse,  with  our  feeble  commendation,  the  names 
of  departed  patriots.  Sir,  monuments  and  eulogy  belong  to  the  dead. 
We  give  them,  this  day,  to  Warren  and  his  associates.  On  other 
occasions  they  have  been  given  to  your  more  immediate  companions 
in  arms,  to  Washington,  to  Greene,  to  Gates,  Sullivan,  and  Lincoln. 
Sir,  we  have  become  reluctant  to  grant  these,  our  highest  and  last 
honors,  further.  We  would  gladly  hold  them  yet  back  from  the  lit- 
tle remnant  of  that  immortal  band.  Serus  in  cozlum  redeas.  Illus- 
trious as  are  your  merits,  yet  far,  oh,  very  far  distant  be  the  day, 
when  any  inscription  shall  bear  your  name,  or  any  tongue  pronounce 
its  eulogy! 

The  leading  reflection,  to  which  this  occasion  seems  to  invite  us, 
respects  the  great  changes  which  have  happened  in  the  fifty  years, 
since  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was  fought.  And  it  peculiarly  marks 
the  character  of  the  present  age,  that,  in  looking  at  these  changes, 
and  in  estimating  their  effect  on  our  condition,  we  are  obliged 
to  consider,  not  what  has  been  done  in  our  own  country  only,  but 
in  others  also.  In  these  interesting  times,  while  nations  are  making 
separate  and  individual  advances  in  improvement,  they  make,  too,  a 
common  progress;  like  vessels  on  a  common  tide,  propelled  by  the 
gales  at  different  rates,  according  to  their  several  structure  and  man- 
agement, but  all  moved  forward  by  one  mighty  current  beneath, 
strong  enough  to  bear  onward  whatever  does  not  sink  beneath  it. 

A  chief  distinction  of  the  present  day  is  a  community  of  opinions 
and  knowledge  amongst  men,  in  different  nations,  existing  in  a  de- 
gree heretofore  unknown.  Knowledge  has,  in  our  time,  triumphed, 
and  is  triumphing,  over  distance,  over  difference  of  languages,  over 
diversity  of  habits,  over  prejudice,  and  over  bigotry.  The  civilized 
and  Christian  world  is  fast  learning  the  great  lesson,  that  difference 
of  nation  does  not  imply  necessary  hostility,  and  that  all  contact  need 
not  be  war.  The  whole  world  is  becoming  a  common  field  for  in- 
tellect to  act  in.  Energy  of  mind,  genius,  power,  wheresoever  it 
exists,  may  speak  out  in  any  tongue,  and  the  world  will  hear  it.  A 
great  chord  of  sentiment  and  feeling  runs  through  two  continents, 
and  vibrates  over  both.  Every  breeze  wafts  intelligence  from  coun- 
try to  country;  every  wave  rolls  it;  all  give  it  forth,  and  all  in  turn 
receive  it.  There  is  a  vast  commerce  of  ideas;  there  are  marts  and 
exchanges  for  intellectual  discoveries,  and  a  wonderful  fellowship  of 
those  individual  intelligences  which  make  up  the  mind  and  opinion 
of  the  age.  Mind  is  the  great  lever  of  all  things;  human  thought  is 
9  F* 


66 

the  process  by  which  human  ends  are  ultimately  answered;  and  the 
diffusion  of  knowledge,  so  astonishing  in  the  last  half  century,  has 
rendered  innumerable  minds,  variously  gifted  by  nature,  competent 
to  be  competitors,  or  fellow-workers,  on  the  theatre  of  intellectual 
operation. 

From  these  causes,  important  improvements  have  taken  place  in 
the  personal  condition  of  individuals.  Generally  speaking,  man- 
kind are  not  only  better  fed,  and  better  clothed,  but  they  are  able 
also  to  enjoy  more  leisure;  they  possess  more  refinement  and  more 
self-respect.  A  superior  tone  of  education,  manners,  and  habits 
prevails.  This  remark,  most  true  in  its  application  to  our  own  coun- 
try, is  also  partly  true,  when  applied  elsewhere.  It  is  proved  by 
the  vastly  augmented  consumption  of  those  articles  of  manufacture 
and  of  commerce,  which  contribute  to  the  comforts  and  the  decen- 
cies of  life;  an  augmentation  which  has  far  outrun  the  progress  of 
population.  And  while  the  unexampled  and  almost  incredible  use 
of  machinery  would  seem  to  supply  the  place  of  labor,  labor  still 
finds  its  occupation  and  its  reward;  so  wisely  has  Providence  adjust- 
ed men's  wants  and  desires  to  their  condition  and  their  capacity. 

Any  adequate  survey,  however,  of  the  progress  made  in  the  last 
half  century,  in  the  polite  and  the  mechanic  arts,  in  machinery  and 
manufactures,  in  commerce  and  agriculture,  in  letters  and  in  science, 
would  require  volumes.  I  must  abstain  wholly  from  these  subjects, 
and  turn,  for  a  moment,  to  the  contemplation  of  what  has  been  done 
on  the  great  question  of  politics  and  government.  This  is  the  mas- 
ter topic  of  the  age;  and  during  the  whole  fifty  years,  it  has  intensely 
occupied  the  thoughts  of  men.  The  nature  of  civil  government, 
its  ends  and  uses,  have  been  canvassed  and  investigated;  ancient 
opinions  attacked  and  defended;  new  ideas  recommended  and  resist- 
ed, by  whatever  power  the  mind  of  man  could  bring  to  the  contro- 
versy. From  the  closet  and  the  public  halls  the  debate  has  been 
transferred  to  the  field;  and  the  world  has  been  shaken  by  wars  of 
unexampled  magnitude,  and  the  greatest  variety  of  fortune.  A  day 
of  peace  has  at  length  succeeded;  and  now  that  the  strife  has  sub- 
sided, and  the  smoke  cleared  away,  we  may  begin  to  see  what  has 
actually  been  done,  permanently  changing  the  state  and  condition 
of  human  society.  And  without  dwelling  on  particular  circum- 
stances, it  is  most  apparent,  that,  from  the  beforementioned  causes 
of  augmented  knowledge  and  improved  individual  condition,  a  real, 
substantial,  and  important  change  has  taken  place,  and  is  taking 
place,  greatly  beneficial,  on  the  whole,  to  human  liberty  and  human 
happiness. 

The  great  wheel  of  political  revolution  began  to  move  in  America. 
Here  its  rotation  was  guarded,  regular,  and  safe.  Transferred  to 
the  other  continent,  from  unfortunate  but  natural  causes,  it  received 
an  irregular  and  violent  impulse;  it  whirled  along  with  a  fearful  ce- 
lerity; till  at  length,  like  the  chariot  wheels  in  the  races  of  antiquity, 
it  took  fire  from  the  rapidity  of  its  own  motion,  and  blazed  onward, 
spreading  conflagration  and  terror  around. 

We  learn  from  the  result  of  this  experiment,  how  fortunate  was 
our  own  condition,  and  how  admirably  the  character  of  our  people 
was  calculated  for  making  the  great  example  of  popular  govern- 


67 

merits.  The  possession  of  power  did  not  turn  the  heads  of  the 
American  people,  for  they  had  long  been  in  the  habit  of  exercising 
a  great  portion  of  self-control.  Although  the  paramount  authority 
of  the  parent  state  existed  over  them,  yet  a  large  field  of  legislation 
had  always  been  open  to  our  colonial  assemblies.  They  were  ac- 
customed to  representative  bodies  and  the  forms  of  free  government; 
they  understood  the  doctrine  of  the  division  of  power  among  differ-  v 
ent  branches,  and  the  necessity  of  checks  on  each.  The  charac-  \X 
ter  of  our  countrymen,  moreover,  was  sober,  moral,  and  religious;  \ 
and  there  was  little  in  the  change  to  shock  their  feelings  of  justice 
and  humanity,  or  even  to  disturb  an  honest  prejudice.  We  had  no 
domestic  throne  to  overturn,  no  privileged  orders  to  cast  down,  no 
violent  changes  of  property  to  encounter.  In  the  American  Revo- 
lution, no  man  sought  or  wished  for  more  than  to  defend  and  enjoy 
his  own.  None  hoped  for  plunder  or  for  spoil.  Rapacity  was  un- 
known to  it;  the  axe  was  not  among  the  instruments  of  its  accom- 
plishment; and  we  all  know  that  it  could  not  have  lived  a  single  day 
under  any  well  founded  imputation  of  possessing  a  tendency  ad- 
verse to  the  Christian  religion. 

It  need  not  surprise  us,  that,  under  circumstances  less  auspicious, 
political  revolutions  elsewhere,  even  when  well  intended,  have  ter- 
minated differently.  It  is,  indeed,  a  great  achievement,  it  is  the 
master  work  of  the  world,  to  establish  governments  entirely  popular, 
on  lasting  foundations;  nor  is  it  easy,  indeed,  to  introduce  the  popu- 
lar principle  at  all,  into  governments  to  which  it  has  been  altogether 
a  stranger.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  however,  that  Europe  has  come 
out  of  the  contest,  in  which  she  has  been  so  long  engaged,  with 
greatly  superior  knowledge,  and,  in  many  respects,  a  highly  im- 
proved condition.  Whatever  benefit  has  been  acquired,  is  likely  to 
be  retained,  for  it  consists  mainly  in  the  acquisition  of  more  en- 
lightened ideas.  And  although  kingdoms  and  provinces  may  be 
wrested  from  the  hands  that  hold  them,  in  the  same  manner  they 
were  obtained;  although  ordinary  and  vulgar  power  may,  in  human 
affairs,  be  lost  as  it  has  been  won;  yet  it  is  the  glorious  prerogative 
of  the  empire  of  knowledge,  that  what  it  gains  it  never  loses.  On 
the  contrary,  it  increases  by  the  multiple  of  its  own  power;  all  its 
ends  become  means;  all  its  attainments,  helps  to  new  conquests. 
Its  whole  abundant  harvest  is  but  so  much  seed  wheat,  and  nothing 
has  ascertained,  and  nothing  can  ascertain,  the  amount  of  ultimate 
product. 

Under  the  influence  of  this  rapidly  increasing  knowledge,  the 
people  have  begun,  in  all  forms  of  government,  to  think,  and  to 
reason,  on  affairs  of  state.  Regarding  government  as  an  institution 
for  the  public  good,  they  demand  a  knowledge  of  its  operations,  and 
a  participation  in  its  exercise.  A  call  for  the  representative  system, 
wherever  it  is  not  enjoyed,  and  where  there  is  already  intelligence 
enough  to  estimate  its  value,  is  perseveringly  made.  Where  men 
may  speak  out,  they  demand  it;  where  the  bayonet  is  at  their  throats, 
they  pray  for  it. 

When  Louis  XIV.  said,  "  I  am  the  state,"  he  expressed  the  es- 
sence of  the  doctrine  of  unlimited  power.  By  the  rules  of  that 
system,  the  people  are  disconnected  from  the  state;  they  are  its  sub- 


68 

jects;  it  is  their  lord.  These  ideas,  founded  in  the  love  of  power, 
and  long  supported  by  the  excess  and  the  abuse  of  it,  are  yielding, 
in  our  age,  to  other  opinions;  and  the  civilized  world  seems  at  last 
to  be  proceeding  to  the  conviction  of  that  fundamental  and  manifest 
truth,  that  the  powers  of  government  are  but  a  trust,  and  that  they 
cannot  be  lawfully  exercised  but  for  the  good  of  the  community. 
As  knowledge  is  more  and  more  extended,  this  conviction  becomes 
more  and  more  general.  Knowledge,  in  truth,  is  the  great  sun  in 
the  firmament.  Life  and  power  are  scattered  with  all  its  beams. 
The  prayer  of  the  Grecian  combatant,  when  enveloped  in  unnatural 
clouds  and  darkness,  is  the  appropriate  political  supplication  for  the 
people  of  every  country  not  yet  blessed  with  free  institutions; 

'  Dispel  this  cloud,  the  light  of  heaven  restore, 
Give  me  to  see — and  Ajax  asks  no  more.' 

We  may  hope,  that  the  growing  influence  of  enlightened  senti- 
ments will  promote  the  permanent  peace  of  the  world.  Wars,  to 
maintain  family  alliances,  to  uphold  or  to  cast  down  dynasties,  to 
regulate  successions  to  thrones,  which  have  occupied  so  much  room 
in  the  history  of  modern  times,  if  not  less  likely  to  happen  at  all, 
will  be  less  likely  to  become  general  and  involve  many  nations,  as 
the  great  principle  shall  be  more  and  more  established,  that  the  in- 
terest of  the  world  is  peace,  and  its  first  great  statute,  that  every 
nation  possesses  the  power  of  establishing  a  government  for  itself 
But  public  opinion  has  attained  also  an  influence  over  governments, 
which  do  not  admit  the  popular  principle  into  their  organization. 
A  necessary  respect  for  the  judgment  of  the  world  operates,  in  some 
measure,  as  a  control  over  the  most  unlimited  forms  of  authority. 
It  is  owing,  perhaps,  to  this  truth,  that  the  interesting  struggle  of 
the  Greeks  has  been  suffered  to  go  on  so  long,  without  a  direct  in- 
terference, either  to  wrest  that  country  from  its  present  masters, 
and  add  it  to  other  powers,  or  to  execute  the  system  of  pacification 
by  force,  and,  with  united  strength,  lay  the  neck  of  Christian  and 
civilized  Greece  at  the  foot  of  the  barbarian  Turk.  Let  us  thank 
God  that  we  live  in  an  age,  when  something  has  influence  besides 
the  bayonet,  and  when  the  sternest  authority  does  not  venture  to 
encounter  the  scorching  power  of  public  reproach.  Any  attempt 
of  the  kind  I  have  mentioned,  should  be  met  by  one  universal  burst 
of  indignation;  the  air  of  the  civilized  world  ought  to  be  made  too 
warm  to  be  comfortably  breathed  by  any  who  would  hazard  it. 

It  is,  indeed,  a  touching  reflection,  that  while,  in  the  fulness  of 
our  country's  happiness,  we  rear  this  monument  to  her  honor,  we 
look  for  instruction,  in  our  undertaking,  to  a  country  which  is  now 
in  fearful  contest,  not  for  works  of  art  or  memorials  of  glory;  but 
for  her  own  existence.  Let  her  be  assured,  that  she  is  not  forgot- 
ten in  the  world;  that  her  efforts  are  applauded,  and  that  constant 
prayers  ascend  for  her  success.  And  let  us  cherish  a  confident 
hope  for  her  final  triumph.  If  the  true  spark  of  religious  and  civil 
liberty  be  kindled,  it  will  burn.  Human  agency  cannot  extinguish 
it.  Like  the  earth's  central  fire  it  may  be  smothered  for  a  time;  the 
ocean  may  overwhelm  it;  mountains  may  press  it  down;  but  its  in- 
herent and  unconquerable  force  will  heave  both  the  ocean  and  the 


69 

land,  and  at  sometime  or  another,  in  some  place  or  another,  the 
volcano  will  break  out  and  flame  up  to  heaven. 

Among  the  great  events  of  the  half  century,  we  must  reckon, 
certainly,  the  Revolution  of  South  America;  and  we  are  not  likely 
to  overrate  the  importance  of  that  Revolution,  either  to  the  people 
of  the  country  itself  or  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  late  Spanish 
colonies,  now  independent  states,  under  circumstances  less  favorable, 
doubtless,  than  attended  our  own  Revolution,  have  yet  successfully 
commenced  their  national  existence.  They  have  accomplished  the 
great  object  of  establishing  their  independence;  they  are  known  and 
acknowledged  in  the  world;  and  although  in  regard  to  their  systems 
of  government,  their  sentiments  on  religious  toleration,  and  their  pro- 
visions for  public  instruction,  they  may  have  yet  much  to  learn,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  they  have  risen  to  the  condition  of  settled  and 
established  states,  more  rapidly  than  could  have  been  reasonably  an- 
ticipated. They  already  furnish  an  exhilarating  example  of  the  dif- 
ference between  free  governments  and  despotic  misrule.  Their 
commerce,  at  this  moment,  creates  a  new  activity  in  all  the  great 
marts  of  the  world.  They  show  themselves  able,  by  an  exchange 
of  commodities,  to  bear  an  useful  part  in  the  intercourse  of  nations. 

A  new  spirit  of  enterprise  and  industry  begins  to  prevail;  all  the 
great  interests  of  society  receive  a  salutary  impulse;  and  the  progress 
of  information  not  only  testifies  to  an  improved  condition,  but  con- 
stitutes, itself,  the  highest  and  most  essential  improvement. 

When  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was  fought,  the  existence  of 
South  America  was  scarcely  felt  in  the  civilized  world.  The  thir- 
teen little  colonies  of  North  America  habitually  called  themselves 
the  "  Continent."  Borne  down  by  colonial  subjugation,  monopoly, 
and  bigotry,  these  vast  regions  of  the  South  were  hardly  visible 
above  the  horizon.  But  in  our  day  there  hath  been,  as  it  were,  a 
new  creation.  The  Southern  Hemisphere  emerges  from  the  sea. 
Its  lofty  mountains  begin  to  lift  themselves  into  the  light  of  heaven; 
its  broad  and  fertile  plains  stretch  out,  in  beauty,  to  the  eye  of  civ- 
ilized man,  and  at  the  mighty  bidding  of  the  voice  of  political  liber- 
ty the  waters  of  darkness  retire. 

And,  now,  let  us  indulge  an  honest  exultation  in  the  conviction 
of  the  benefit,  which  the  example  of  our  country  has  produced,  and 
is  likely  to  produce,  on  human  freedom  and  human  happiness.  And 
let  us  endeavour  to  comprehend,  in  all  its  magnitude,  and  to  feel,  in 
all  its  importance,  the  part  assigned  to  us  in  the  great  drama  of  hu- 
man affairs.  We  are  placed  at  the  head  of  the  system  of  represen- 
tative and  popular  governments.  Thus  far  our  example  shows,  that 
such  governments  are  compatible,  not  only  with  respectability  and 
power,  but  with  repose,  with  peace,  with  security  of  personal  rights, 
with  good  laws,  and  a  just  administration. 

We  are  not  propagandists.  Wherever  other  systems  are  preferred, 
either  as  being  thought  better  in  themselves,  or  as  better  suited  to 
existing  condition,  we  leave  the  preference  to  be  enjoyed.  Our  his- 
tory hitherto  proves,  however,  that  the  popular  form  is  practicable, 
and  that  with  wisdom  and  knowledge  men  may  govern  themselves; 
and  the  duty  incumbent  on  us  is,  to  preserve  the  consistency  of  this 


70 

cheering  example,  and  take  care  that  nothing  may  weaken  its  au- 
thority with  the  world.  If,  in  our  case,  the  Representative  system 
ultimately  fail,  popular  governments  must  be  pronounced  impossible. 
No  combination  of  circumstances  more  favorable  to  the  experiment 
can  ever  be  expected  to  occur.  The  last  hopes  of  mankind,  there- 
fore, rest  with  us;  and  if  it  should  be  proclaimed,  that  our  example 
had  become  an  argument  against  the  experiment,  the  knell  of  popu- 
lar liberty  would  be  sounded  throughout  the  earth. 

These  are  excitements  to  duty;  but  they  are  not  suggestions  of 
doubt.  Our  history  and  our  condition,  all  that  is  gone  before  us, 
and  all  that  surrounds  us,  authorise  the  belief,  that  popular  govern- 
ments, though  subject  to  occasional  variations,  perhaps  not  always 
for  the  better,  in  form,  may  yet,  in  their  general  character,  be  as 
durable  and  permanent  as  other  systems.  We  know,  indeed,  that, 
in  our  country,  any  other  is  impossible.  The  Principle  of  Free 
Governments  adheres  to  the  American  soil.  It  is  bedded  in  it;  im- 
movable as  its  mountains. 

And  let  the  sacred  obligations  which  have  devolved  on  this  gen- 
eration, and  on  us,  sink  deep  into  our  hearts.  Those  are  daily  drop- 
ping from  among  us,  who  established  our  liberty  and  our  government. 
The  great  trust  now  descends  to  new  hands.  Let  us  apply  ourselves 
to  that  which  is  presented  to  us,  as  our  appropriate  object.  We 
can  win  no  laurels  in  a  war  for  Independence.  Earlier  and  worthier 
hands  have  gathered  them  all.  Nor  are  there  places  for  us  by  the 
side  of  Solon,  and  Alfred,  and  other  founders  of  states.  Our  fath- 
ers have  filled  them.  But  there  remains  to  us  a  great  duty  of  defence 
and  preservation;  and  there  is  opened  to  us,  also,  a  noble  pursuit,  to 
which  the  spirit  of  the  times  strongly  invites  us.  Our  proper  busi- 
ness is  improvement.  f~Let  our  age  be  the  age  of  improvement.  In 
a  day  of  peace,  let  us  advance  the  arts  of  peace  and  the  works  of 
peace.  Let  us  develope  the  resources  of  our  land,  call  forth  its  pow- 
ers, build  up  its  institutions,  promote  all  its  great  interests,  and  see 
whether  we  also,  in  our  day  and  generation,  may  not  perform  some- 
thing worthy  to  be  remembered.  Let  us  cultivate  a  true  spirit  of 
union  and  harmony.  In  pursuing  the  great  objects,  which  our  con- 
dition points  out  to  us,  let  us  act  under  a  settled  conviction,  and  an 
habitual  feeling,  that  these  twenty-four  states  are  one  country. 
Let  our  conceptions  be  enlarged  to  the  circle  of  our  duties.  Let 
us  extend  our  ideas  over  the  whole  of  the  vast  field  in  which  we  are 
called  to  act\  Let  our  object  be,  our  country,  our  whole  country, 
and  nothing  but  our  country.  And,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  may 
that  country  itself  become  a  vast  and  splendid  Monument,  not  of 
oppression  and  terror,  but  of  Wisdom,  of  Peace,  and  of  Liberty, 
upon  which  the  world  may  gaze,  with  admiration,  forever  ! 


DISCOURSE 


IN  COMMEMORATION  OF  THE  LIVES  AND  SERVICES  OF  JOHN  ADAMS 
AND  THOMAS  JEFFERSON,  DELIVERED  IN  FANEUIL  HALL,  BOSTON. 
AUGUST  2,  1826. 


This  is  an  unaccustomed  spectacle.  For  the  first  time,  fellow 
citizens,  badges  of  mourning  shroud  the  columns  and  overhang  the 
arches  of  this  Hall.  These  walls,  which  were  consecrated,  so  long 
ago,  to  the  cause  of  American  liberty,  which  witnessed  her  infant 
struggles,  and  rung  with  the  shouts  of  her  earliest  victories,  proclaim, 
now,  that  distinguished  friends  and  champions  of  that  great  cause 
have  fallen.  It  is  right  that  it  should  be  thus.  The  tears  which 
flow,  and  the  honors  that  are  paid,  when  the  Founders  of  the  Re- 
public die,  give  hope  that  the  Republic  itself  may  be  immortal.  It 
is  fit,  that  by  public  assembly  and  solemn  observance,  by  anthem 
and  by  eulogy,  we  commemorate  the  services  of  national  benefac- 
tors, extol  their  virtues,  and  render  thanks  to  God  for  eminent  bles- 
sings, early  given  and  long  continued,  to  our  favored  country. 

ADAMS  and  JEFFERSON  are  no  more;  and  we  are  assembled, 
fellow  citizens,  the  aged,  the  middle  aged  and  the  young,  by  the 
spontaneous  impulse  of  all,  under  the  authority  of  the  municipal 
government,  with  the  presence  of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, and  others  its  official  representatives,  the  university,  and 
the  learned  societies,  to  bear  our  part,  in  those  manifestations  of  re- 
spect and  gratitude  which  universally  pervade  the  land.  Adams  and 
Jefferson  are  no  more.  On  our  fiftieth  anniversary,  the  great  day  of 
National  Jubilee,  in  the  very  hour  of  public  rejoicing,  in  the  midst 
of  echoing  and  reechoing  voices  of  thanksgiving,  while  their  own 
names  were  on  all  tongues,  they  took  their  flight,  together,  to  the 
world  of  spirits. 

If  it  be  true  that  no  one  can  safely  be  pronounced  happy  while  he 
lives;  if  that  event  which  terminates  life  can  alone  crown  its  honors 
and  its  glory,  what  felicity  is  here!  The  great  Epic  of  their  lives, 
how  happily  concluded!  Poetry  itself  has  hardly  closed  illustrious 
lives,  and  finished  the  career  of  earthly  renown,  by  such  a  consum- 
mation. If  we  had  the  power,  we  could  not  wish  to  reverse  this 
dispensation  of  the  Divine  Providence.  The  great  objects  of  life 
were  accomplished,  the  drama  was  ready  to  be  closed;  it  has  closed; 


72 

our  patriots  have  fallen;  but  so  fallen,  at  such  age,  with  such  coin- 
cidence, on  such  a  day,  that  we  cannot  rationally  lament  that  that 
end  has  come,  which  we  knew  could  not  be  long  deferred. 

Neither  of  these  great  men,  fellow  citizens,  could  have  died,  at 
any  time,  without  leaving  an  immense  void  in  our  American  society. 
They  have  been  so  intimately,  and  for  so  long  a  time,  blended  with 
the  history  of  the  country,  and  especially  so  united,  in  our  thoughts 
and  recollections,  with  the  events  of  the  Revolution,  that  the  death 
of  either  would  have  touched  the  strings  of  public  sympathy.  We 
should  have  felt  that  one  great  link,  connecting  us  with  former  times, 
was  broken;  that  we  had  lost  something  more,  as  it  were,  of  the 
presence  of  the  Revolution  itself,  and  of  the  act  of  independence, 
and  were  driven  on,  by  another  great  remove,  from  the  days  of  our 
country's  early  distinction,  to  meet  posterity,  and  to  mix  with  the  fu- 
ture. Like  the  mariner,  whom  the  ocean  and  the  winds  carry  along, 
till  he  sees  the  stars  which  have  directed  his  course,  and  lighted  his 
pathless  way,  descend,  one  by  one,  beneath  the  rising  horizon,  we 
should  have  felt  that  the  stream  of  time  had  borne  us  onward,  till 
another  great  luminary,  whose  light  had  cheered  us,  and  whose  guid- 
ance we  had  followed,  had  sunk  away  from  our  sight. 

But  the  concurrence  of  their  death,  on  the  anniversary  of  Inde- 
pendence, has  naturally  awakened  stronger  emotions.  Both  had 
been  presidents,  both  had  lived  to  great  age,  both  were  early  patriots, 
and  both  were  distinguished  and  ever  honored  by  their  immediate 
agency  in  the  act  of  independence.  It  cannot  but  seem  striking 
and  extraordinary;  that  these  two  should  live  to  see  the  fiftieth  year 
from  the  date  of  that  act;  that  they  should  complete  that  year;  and 
that  then,  on  the  day  which  had  fast  linked  forever  their  own  fame 
with  their  country's  glory,  the  heavens  should  open  to  receive  them 
both  at  once.  As  their  lives  themselves  were  the  gifts  of  Provi- 
dence, who  is  not  willing  to  recognise  in  their  happy  termination, 
as  well  as  in  their  long  continuance,  proofs  that  our  country,  and  its 
benefactors,  are  objects  of  His  care? 

Adams  and  JeffersOxV,  I  have  said,  are  no  more.  As  human 
beings,  indeed,  they  are  no  more.  They  are  no  more,  as  in  1776, 
bold  and  fearless  advocates  of  independence;  no  more  as  on  subse- 
quent periods,  the  head  of  the  government;  no  more  as  we  have  re- 
cently seen  them,  aged  and  venerable  objects  of  admiration  and 
regard.  They  are  no  more.  They  are  dead.  But  how  little  is 
there,  of  the  great  and  good,  which  can  die!  To  their  country  they 
yet  live,  and  live  forever.  They  live  in  all  that  perpetuates  the  re- 
membrance of  men  on  earth;  in  the  recorded  proofs  of  their  own 
great  actions,  in  the  offspring  of  their  intellect,  in  the  deep  engraved 
lines  of  public  gratitude,  and  in  the  respect  and  homage  of  man- 
kind. They  live  in  their  example;  and  they  live,  emphatically,  and 
will  live  in  the  influence  which  their  lives  and  efforts,  their  princi- 
ples and  opinions,  now  exercise,  and  will  continue  to  exercise,  on 
the  affairs  of  men,  not  only  in  their  own  country,  but  throughout  the 
civilized  world.  A  superior  and  commanding  human  intellect,  a 
truly  great  man,  when  Heaven  vouchsafes  so  rare  a  gift,  is  not  a 
temporary  flame,  burning  bright  for  a  while,  and  then  expiring,  giv- 
ing place  to  returning  darkness.     It  is  rather  a  spark  of  fervent 


73 

heat,  as  well  as  radiant  light,  with  power  to  enkindle  the  common 
mass  of  human  mind;  so  that  when  it  glimmers,  in  its  own  decay, 
and  finally  goes  out  in  death,  no  night  follows,  but  it  leaves  the 
world  all  light,  all  on  fire,  from  the  potent  contact  of  its  own  spirit. 
Bacon  died;  but  the  human  understanding,  roused,  by  the  touch  of 
his  miraculous  wand,  to  a  perception  of  the  true  philosophy,  and 
the  just  mode  of  inquiring  after  truth,  has  kept  on  its  course,  suc- 
cessfully and  gloriously.  Newton  died;  yet  the  courses  of  the 
spheres  are  still  known,  and  they  yet  move  on,  in  the  orbits  which 
he  saw,  and  described  for  them,  in  the  infinity  of  space. 

No  two  men  now  live,  fellow  citizens,  perhaps  it  may  be  doubted, 
whether  any  two  men  have  ever  lived,  in  one  age,  who,  more  than 
those  we  now  commemorate,  have  impressed  their  own  sentiments, 
in  regard  to  politics  and  government,  on  mankind,  infused  their  own 
opinions  more  deeply  into  the  opinions  of  others,  or  given  a  more 
lasting  direction  to  the  current  of  human  thought.  Their  work 
doth  not  perish  with  them.  The  tree  which  they  assisted  to  plant, 
will  flourish,  although  they  water  it  and  protect  it  no  longer;  for  it 
has  struck  its  roots  deep,  it  has  sent  them  to  the  very  centre;  no 
storm,  not  of  force  to  burst  the  orb,  can  overturn  it;  its  branches 
spread  wide;  they  stretch  their  protecting  arms  broader  and  broader, 
and  its  top  is  destined  to  reach  the  heavens.  We  are  not  deceived. 
There  is  no  delusion  here.  No  age  will  come,  in  which  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution  will  appear  less  than  it  is,  one  of  the  greatest  events 
in  human  history.  No  age  will  come,  in  which  it  will  cease  to  be 
seen  and  felt,  on  either  continent,  that  a  mighty  step,  a  great  ad- 
vance, not  only  in  American  affairs,  but  in  human  affairs,  was  made 
on  the  4th  of  July  1776.  And  no  age  will  come,  we  trust,  so  igno- 
rant or  so  unjust,  as  not  to  see  and  acknowledge  the  efficient  agency 
of  these  we  now  honor,  in  producing  that  momentous  event. 

We  are  not  assembled,  therefore,  fellow  citizens,  as  men  over- 
whelmed with  calamity  by  the  sudden  disruption  of  the  ties  of 
friendship  or  affection,  or  as  in  despair  for  the  Republic,  by  the  un- 
timely blighting  of  its  hopes.  Death  has  not  surprised  us  by  an 
unseasonable  blow.  We  have,  indeed,  seen  the  tomb  close,  but  it 
has  closed  only  over  mature  years,  over  long  protracted  public  ser- 
vice, over  the  weakness  of  age,  and  over  life  itself  only  when  the 
ends  of  living  had  been  fulfilled.  These  suns,  as  they  rose  slowly, 
and  steadily,  amidst  clouds  and  storms,  in  their  ascendant,  so  they 
have  not  rushed  from  their  meridian,  to  sink  suddenly  in  the  west. 
Like  the  mildness,  the  serenity,  the  continuing  benignity  of  a  sum- 
mer's day,  they  have  gone  down  with  slow  descending,  grateful, 
long  lingering  light;  and  now  that  they  are  beyond  the  visible  mar- 
gin of  the  world,  good  omens  cheer  us  from  "  the  bright  track  of 
their  fiery  car!  " 

There  were  many  points  of  similarity  in  the  lives  and  fortunes  of 
these  great  men.  They  belonged  to  the  same  profession,  and  had  pur- 
sued its  studies  and  its  practice,  for  unequal  lengths  of  time  indeed, 
but  with  diligence  and  effect.  Both  were  learned  and  able  lawyers. 
They  were  natives  and  inhabitants,  respectively,  of  those  two  of  the 
colonies,  which,  at  the  revolution,  were  the  largest  and  most  powerful, 
and  which  naturally  had  a  lead  in  the  political  affairs  of  the  times. 
10  G 


74 

When  the  colonies  became,  in  some  degree,  united,  by  the  assem- 
bling of  a  general  congress,  they  were  brought  to  act  together,  in 
its  deliberations,  not  indeed  at  the  same  time,  but  both  at  early  pe- 
riods. Each  had  already  manifested  his  attachment  to  the  cause  of 
the  country,  as  well  as  his  ability  to  maintain  it,  by  printed  address- 
es, public  speeches,  extensive  correspondence,  and  whatever  other 
mode  could  be  adopted,  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  British  parliament  and  animating  the  people  to  a  manly 
resistance.  Both  were  not  only  decided,  but  early  friends  of  Inde- 
pendence. While  others  yet  doubted,  they  were  resolved;  where 
others  hesitated,  they  pressed  forward.  They  were  both  members 
of  the  committee  for  preparing  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
and  they  constituted  the  sub-committee,  appointed  by  the  other 
members  to  make  the  draught.  They  left  their  seats  in  congress, 
being  called  to  other  public  employments,  at  periods  not  remote  from 
each  other,  although  one  of  them  returned  to  it,  afterwards,  for  a 
short  time.  Neither  of  them  was  of  the  assembly  of  great  men 
which  formed  the  present  constitution,  and  neither  was  at  any  time 
member  of  congress  under  its  provisions.  Both  have  been  public 
ministers  abroad,  both  vice-presidents,  and  both  presidents.  These 
coincidences  are  now  singularly  crowned  and  completed.  They 
have  died,  together;  and  they  died  on  the  anniversary  of  liberty. 

When  many  of  us  were  last  in  this  place,  fellow  citizens,  it  was 
on  the  day  of  that  anniversary.  We  were  met  to  enjoy  the  festivi- 
ties belonging  to  the  occasion,  and  to  manifest  our  grateful  homage 
to  our  political  fathers. 

We  did  not,  we  could  not  here,  forget  our  venerable  neighbour 
of  Quincy.  We  knew  that  we  were  standing,  at  a  time  of  high  and 
palmy  prosperity,  where  he  had  stood,  in  the  hour  of  utmost  peril; 
that  we  saw  nothing  but  liberty  and  security,  where  he  had  met  the 
frown  of  power;  that  we  were  enjoying  everything,  where  he  had 
hazarded  everything;  and  just  and  sincere  plaudits  rose  to  his  name, 
from  the  crowds  which  filled  this  area,  and  hung  over  these  gal- 
leries. He  whose  grateful  duty  it  was  to  speak  to  us,  on  that  day, 
of  the  virtues  of  our  fathers  had,  indeed,  admonished  us  that  time 
and  years  were  about  to  level  his  venerable  frame  with  the  dust. 
But  he  bade  us  hope,  that  "  the  sound  of  a  nation's  joy,  rushing 
from  our  cities,  ringing  from  our  valleys,  echoing  from  our  hills, 
might  yet  break  the  silence  of  his  aged  ear;  that  the  rising  blessings 
of  grateful  millions  might  yet  visit,  with  glad  light,  his  decaying 
vision."  Alas!  that  vision  was  then  closing  forever.  Alas!  the 
silence  which  was  then  settling  on  that  aged  ear,  was  an  everlasting 
silence!  For,  lo!  in  the  very  moment  of  our  festivities,  his  freed 
spirit  ascended  to  God  who  gave  it!  Human  aid  and  human  solace 
terminate  at  the  grave;  or  we  would  gladly  have  borne  him  upward, 
on  a  nation's  outspread  hands;  we  would  have  accompanied  him, 
and  with  the  blessings  of  millions  and  the  prayers  of  millions,  com- 
mended him  to  the  Divine  favor. 

While  still  indulging  our  thoughts  on  the  coincidence  of  the  death 
of  this  venerable  man  with  the  anniversary  of  independence,  we 
learn  that  Jefferson,  too,  has  fallen;  and  that  these  aged  patriots, 
these  illustrious  fellow-laborers,  had  left  our  world  together.     May 


75 

not  such  events  raise  the  suggestion  that  they  are  not  undesigned, 
and  that  Heaven  does  so  order  things,  as  sometimes  to  attract  strong- 
ly the  attention,  and  excite  the  thoughts  of  men?  The  occurrence 
has  added  new  interest  to  our  anniversary  and  will  be  remembered, 
in  all  time  to  come. 

The  occasion,  fellow  citizens,  requires  some  account  of  the  lives 
and  services  of  John  Adams  and  Thomas  Jefferson.  This  duty 
must  necessarily  be  performed  with  great  brevity,  and  in  the  dis- 
charge of  it  I  shall  be  obliged  to  confine  myself,  principally,  to 
those  parts  of  their  history  and  character  which  belonged  to  them  as 
public  men. 

John  Adams  was  born  at  Quincy,  then  part  of  the  ancient  town 
of  Braintree,  on  the  19th  day  of  October  (Old  Style)  1735.  He 
was  a  descendant  of  the  Puritans,  his  ancestors  having  early  emi- 
grated from  England,  and  settled  in  Massachusetts.  Discovering 
early  a  strong  love  of  reading  and  of  knowledge,  together  with  marks 
of  great  strength  and  activity  of  mind,  proper  care  was  taken  by  his 
worthy  father,  to  provide  for  his  education.  He  pursued  his  youth- 
ful studies  in  Braintree,  under  Mr.  Marsh,  a  teacher  whose  fortune 
it  was  that  Josiah  Quincy,  Jr.  as  well  as  the  subject  of  these  remarks, 
should  receive  from  him  his  instruction  in  the  rudiments  of  classical 
literature.  Having  been  admitted,  in  1751,  a  member  of  Harvard 
College,  Mr.  Adams  was  graduated,  in  course,  in  1755;  and  on  the 
catalogue  of  that  Institution,  his  name,  at  the  time  of  his  death, 
was  second  among  the  living  Alumni,  being  preceded  only  by  that 
of  the  venerable  Holyoke.  With  what  degree  of  reputation  he 
left  the  University,  is  not  now  precisely  known.  We  know  only 
that  he  was  distinguished,  in  a  class  which  numbered  Locke  and 
Hemenway  among  its  members.  Choosing  the  law  for  his  profes- 
sion, he  commenced  and  prosecuted  its  studies  at  Worcester,  under 
the  direction  of  Samuel  Putnam,  a  gentleman  whom  he  has  himself 
described  as  an  acute  man,  an  able  and  learned  lawyer,  and  as  in 
large  professional  practice  at  that  time.  In  1758,  he  was  admitted 
to  the  bar,  and  commenced  business  in  Braintree.  He  is  understood 
to  have  made  his  first  considerable  effort,  or  to  have  attained  his  first 
signal  success,  at  Plymouth,  on  one  of  those  occasions  which  fur- 
nish the  earliest  opportunity  for  distinction  to  many  young  men  of 
the  profession,  a  jury  trial,  and  a  criminal  cause.  His  business  nat- 
urally grew  with  his  reputation,  and  his  residence  in  the  vicinity 
afforded  the  opportunity,  as  his  growing  eminence  gave  the  power, 
of  entering  on  the  larger  field  of  practice  which  the  capital  present- 
ed. In  1766,  he  removed  his  residence  to  Boston,  still  continuing 
his  attendance  on  the  neighbouring  circuits,  and  not  unfrequently 
called  to  remote  parts  of  the  Province.  In  1770  his  professional 
firmness  was  brought  to  a  test  of  some  severity,  on  the  application 
of  the  British  officers  and  soldiers  to  undertake  their  defence,  on 
the  trial  of  the  indictments  found  against  them  on  account  of  the 
transactions  of  the  memorable  5th  of  March.  He  seems  to  have 
thought,  on  this  occasion,  that  a  man  can  no  more  abandon  the  proper 
duties  of  his  profession,  than  he  can  abandon  other  duties.  The 
event  proved,  that  as  he  judged  well  for  his  own  reputation,  so  he 
judged  well,  also,  for  the  interest  and  permanent  fame  of  his  country. 


76 

The  result  of  that  trial  proved,  that  notwithstanding  the  high  degree 
of  excitement  then  existing,  in  consequence  of  the  measures  of  the 
British  government,  a  jury  of  Massachusetts  would  not  deprive  the 
most  reckless  enemies,  even  the  officers  of  that  standing  army, 
quartered  among  them,  which  they  so  perfectly  abhorred,  of  any  part 
of  that  protection  which  the  law,  in  its  mildest  and  most  indulgent 
interpretation,  afforded  to  persons  accused  of  crimes. 

Without  pursuing  Mr.  Adams's  professional  course  further,  suffice 
it  to  say,  that  on  the  first  establishment  of  the  judicial  tribunals  under 
the  authority  of  the  State,  in  1776,  he  received  an  offer  of  the  high 
and  responsible  station  of  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
But  he  was  destined  for  another  and  a  different  career.  From  early 
life  the  bent  of  his  mind  was  toward  politics;  a  propensity,  which 
the  state  of  the  times,  if  it  did  not  create,  doubtless  very  much 
strengthened.  Public  subjects  must  have  occupied  the  thoughts 
and  filled  up  the  conversation  in  the  circles  in  which  he  then  moved; 
and  the  interesting  questions,  at  that  time  just  arising,  could  not  but 
seize  on  a  mind,  like  his,  ardent,  sanguine  and  patriotic.  The  letter, 
fortunately  preserved,  written  by  him  at  Worcester  so  early  as  the 
12th  of  October,  1755,  is  a  proof  of  very  comprehensive  views,  and 
uncommon  depth  of  reflection,  in  a  young  man  not  yet  quite  twenty. 
In  this  letter  he  predicted  the  transfer  of  power,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  new  seat  of  empire  in  America;  he  predicted,  also,  the 
increase  of  population  in  the  colonies;  and  anticipated  their  naval 
distinction,  and  foretold  that  all  Europe,  combined,  could  not  subdue 
them.  All  this  is  said,  not  on  a  public  occasion,  or  for  effect,  but 
in  the  style  of  sober  and  friendly  correspondence,  as  the  result  of 
his  own  thoughts.  "  I  sometimes  retire,"  said  he,  at  the  close  of 
the  letter,  "  and  laying  things  together  form  some  reflections  pleas- 
ing to  myself.  The  produce  of  one  of  these  reveries  you  have  read 
above."*  This  prognostication,  so  early  in  his  own  life,  so  early 
in  the  history  of  the  country,  of  independence,  of  vast  increase  of 
numbers,  of  naval  force,  of  such  augmented  power  as  might  defy 
all  Europe,  is  remarkable.  It  is  more  remarkable,  that  its  author 
should  live  to  see  fulfilled  to  the  letter,  what  could  have  seemed  to 
others,  at  the  time,  but  the  extravagance  of  youthful  fancy.  His 
earliest  political  feelings  were  thus  strongly  American;  and  from 
this  ardent  attachment  to  his  native  soil  he  never  departed. 

While  still  living  at  Quincy,  and  at  the  age  of  twenty-four,  Mr. 
Adams  was  present,  in  this  town,  on  the  argument  before  the  Su- 

*  Extract  of  a  letter  written  by  John  Adams,  dated  at  Worcester,  Massachusetts,  October 
12,  1755. 

"  Soon  after  the  Reformation,  a  few  people  came  over  into  this  new  world,  for  conscience 
sake.  Perhaps  this  apparently  trivial  incident  may  transfer  the  great  seat  of  empire  into 
America.  It  looks  likely  to  me ;  for,  if  we  can  remove  the  turbulent  Gallics,  our  people, 
according  to  the  exactest  computations,  will  in  another  century,  become  more  numerous 
than  England  itself.  Should  this  be  the  case,  since  we  have,  I  may  say,  all  the  naval  stores 
of  the  nation  in  our  hands,  it  will  be  easy  to  obtain  a  mastery  of  the  seas ;  and  then  the  uni- 
ted force  of  all  Europe  will  not  be  able  to  subdue  us.  The  only  way  to  keep  us  from  setting 
up  for  ourselves  is  to  disunite  us. 

"  Be  not  surprised  that  I  am  turned  politician.  This  whole  town  is  immersed  in  politics. 
The  interests  of  nations,  and  all  the  dira  of  war,  make  the  subject  of  every  conversation. 
I  sit  and  hear,  and  after  having  been  led  through  a  maze  of  sage  observations,  I  sometimes 
retire,  and  laying  things  togedier,  form  some  reflections  pleasing  to  myself.  The  produce 
of  one  of  these  reveries  you  have  read  above." 


77 

preme  Court  respecting  Writs  of  Assistance,  and  heard  the  celebrated 
and  patriotic  speech  of  James  Otis.  Unquestionably,  that  was  a 
masterly  performance.  No  flighty  declamation  about  liberty,  no 
superficial  discussion  of  popular  topics,  it  was  a  learned,  penetrating, 
convincing,  constitutional  argument,  expressed  in  a  strain  of  high  and 
resolute  patriotism.  He  grasped  the  question,  then  pending  between 
England  and  her  Colonies,  with  the  strength  of  a  lion;  and  if  he 
sometimes  sported,  it  was  only  because  the  lion  himself  is  some- 
times playful.  Its  success  appears  to  have  been  as  great  as  its  mer- 
its, and  its  impression  was  widely  felt.  Mr.  Adams  himself  seems 
never  to  have  lost  the  feeling  it  produced,  and  to  have  entertained 
constantly  the  fullest  conviction  of  its  important  effects.  "  I  do  say," 
he  observes,  "  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  Mr.  Otis's  Oration 
against  Writs  of  Assistance,  breathed  into  this  nation  the  breath  of 
life." 

In  1765  Mr.  Adams  laid  before  the  public,  what  I  suppose  to  be 
his  first  printed  performance,  except  essays  for  the  periodical  press, 
a  Dissertation  on  the  Canon  and  Feudal  Law.  The  object  of  this 
work  was  to  show  that  our  New  England  ancestors,  in  consenting  to 
exile  themselves  from  their  native  land,  were  actuated,  mainly,  by 
the  desire  of  delivering  themselves  from  the  power  of  the  hierarchy, 
and  from  the  monarchical  and  aristocratical  political  systems  of  the 
other  continent;  and  to  make  this  truth  bear,  with  effect,  on  the  pol- 
itics of  the  times.  Its  tone  is  uncommonly  bold  and  animated,  for 
that  period.  He  calls  on  the  people,  not  only  to  defend,  but  to 
study  and  understand  their  rights  and  privileges;  urges  earnestly  the 
necessity  of  diffusing  general  knowledge,  invokes  the  clergy  and  the 
bar,  the  colleges  and  academies,  and  all  others  who  have  the  ability 
and  the  means,  to  expose  the  insidious  designs  of  arbitrary  power, 
to  resist  its  approaches,  and  to  be  persuaded  that  there  is  a  settled 
design  on  foot  to  enslave  all  America.  u  Be  it  remembered,"  says 
the  author,  "that  liberty  must,  at  all  hazards,  be  supported.  We 
have  a  right  to  it,  derived  from  our  Maker.  But  if  we  had  not, 
our  fathers  have  earned  it,  and  bought  it  for  us,  at  the  expense 
of  their  ease,  their  estate,  their  pleasure  and  their  blood.  And  lib- 
erty cannot  be  preserved  without  a  general  knowledge  among  the 
people,  who  have  a  right,  from  the  frame  of  their  nature,  to  know- 
ledge, as  their  great  Creator,  who  does  nothing  in  vain,  has  given 
them  understandings,  and  a  desire  to  know;  but  besides  this,  they 
have  a  right,  an  indisputable,  unalienable,  indefeasible  right  to  that 
most  dreaded  and  envied  kind  of  knowledge,  I  mean  of  the  character 
and  conduct  of  their  rulers.  Rulers  are  no  more  than  attorneys, 
agents,  and  trustees  of  the  people;  and  if  the  cause,  the  interest  and 
trust,  is  insidiously  betrayed,  or  wantonly  trifled  away,  the  people' 
have  a  right  to  revoke  the  authority,  that  they  themselves  have 
deputed,  and  to  constitute  other  and  better  agents,  attorneys  and 
trustees." 

The  citizens  of  this  town  conferred  on  Mr.  Adams  his  first  politi- 
cal distinction,  and  clothed  him  with  his  first  political  trust,  by 
electing  him  one  of  their  representatives,  in  1770.  Before  this 
time  he  had  become  extensively  known  throughout  the  province, 
as  well  by  the  part  he  had  acted  in  relation  to  public  affairs,  as 

G* 


78 

by  the  exercise  of  his  professional  ability.  He  was  among  those 
who  took  the  deepest  interest  in  the  controversy  with  England, 
and  whether  in  or  out  of  the  Legislature,  his  time  and  talents  were 
alike  devoted  to  the  cause.  In  the  years  1773  and  1774  he  was 
chosen  a  counsellor,  by  the  members  of  the  General  Court,  but  re- 
jected by  Governor  Hutchinson,  in  the  former  of  those  years,  and 
by  Governor  Gage  in  the  latter. 

The  time  was  now  at  hand,  however,  when  the  affairs  of  the  col- 
onies urgently  demanded  united  councils.  An  open  rupture  with 
the  parent  State  appeared  inevitable,  and  it  was  but  the  dictate  of 
prudence,  that  those  who  were  united  by  a  common  interest  and  a 
common  danger,  should  protect  that  interest  and  guard  against  that 
danger,  by  united  efforts.  A  general  Congress  of  Delegates  from 
all  the  colonies,  having  been  proposed  and  agreed  to,  the  House  of 
Representatives,  on  the  17th  of  June  1774,  elected  James  Bowdoin, 
Thomas  Cushing,  Samuel  Adams,  John  Adams,  and  Robert 
Treat  Paine,  delegates  from  Massachusetts.  This  appointment 
was  made  at  Salem,  where  the  General  Court  had  been  convened 
by  Governor  Gage,  in  the  last  hour  of  the  existence  of  a  House 
of  Representatives  under  the  provincial  Charter.  While  engaged 
in  this  important  business,  the  governor  having  been  informed  of 
what  was  passing,  sent  his  secretary  with  a  message  dissolving  the 
General  Court.  The  secretary  finding  the  door  locked,  directed 
the  messenger  to  go  in  and  inform  the  speaker  that  the  secretary 
was  at  the  door  with  a  message  from  the  governor.  The  messen- 
ger returned,  and  informed  the  secretary  that  the  orders  of  the 
House  were  that  the  doors  should  be  kept  fast;  whereupon  the  sec- 
retary soon  after  read  a  proclamation,  dissolving  the  General  Court 
upon  the  stairs.  Thus  terminated,  forever,  the  actual  exercise  of 
the  political  power  of  England  in  or  over  Massachusetts.  The 
four  last  named  delegates  accepted  their  appointments,  and  took 
their  seats  in  Congress,  the  first  day  of  its  meeting,  September  5, 
1774,  in  Philadelphia. 

The  proceedings  of  the  first  Congress  are  well  known,  and  have 
been  universally  admired.  It  is  in  vain  that  we  would  look  for  su- 
perior proofs  of  wisdom,  talent,  and  patriotism.  Lord  Chatham 
said,  that  for  himself,  he  must  declare,  that  he  had  studied  and  ad- 
mired the  free  states  of  antiquity,  the  master  states  of  the  world 
but  that  for  solidity  of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wisdom  oi 
conclusion,  no  body  of  men  could  stand  in  preference  to  this  Con 
gress.  It  is  hardly  inferior  praise  to  say,  that  no  production  of  that 
great  man  himself  can  be  pronounced  superior  to  several  of  the  pa- 
pers published  as  the  proceedings  of  this  most  able,  most  firm,  most 
patriotic  assembly.  There  is,  indeed,  nothing  superior  to  them  in 
the  range  of  political  disquisition.  They  not  only  embrace,  illus- 
trate, and  enforce  everything  which  political  philosophy,  the  love 
of  liberty,  and  the  spirit  of  free  inquiry  had  antecedently  produced, 
but  they  add  new  and  striking  views  of  their  own,  and  apply  the 
whole,  with  irresistible  force,  in  support  of  the  cause  which  had 
drawn  them  together. 

Mr.  Adams  was  a  constant  attendant  on  the  deliberations  of  this 
body,  and  bore  an  active  part  in  its  important  measures.     He  was 


79 

of  the  committee  to  state  the  rights  of  the  colonies,  and  of  that  also 
which  reported  the  address  to  the  king. 

As  it  was  in  the  continental  Congress,  fellow  citizens,  that  those 
whose  deaths  have  given  rise  to  this  occasion,  were  first  brought 
together,  and  called  on  to  unite  their  industry  and  their  ability,  in 
the  service  of  the  country,  let  us  now  turn  to  the  other  of  these 
distinguished  men,  and  take  a  brief  notice  of  his  life,  up  to  the 
period  when  he  appeared  within  the  walls  of  Congress. 

Thomas  Jefferson,  descended  from  ancestors  who  had  been  set- 
tled in  Virginia  for  some  generations,  was  born  near  the  spot  on 
which  he  died,  in  the  county  of  Albemarle,  on  the  2d  of  April,  (Old 
Style,)  1743.  His  youthful  studies  were  pursued  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  his  father's  residence,  until  he  was  removed  to  the  college 
of  William  and  Mary,  the  highest  honors  of  which  he  in  due  time 
received.  Having  left  the  college  with  reputation,  he  applied  him- 
self to  the  study  of  the  law,  under  the  tuition  of  George  Wythe, 
one  of  the  highest  judicial  names  of  which  that  State  can  boast. 
At  an  early  age  he  was  elected  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  in 
which  he  had  no  sooner  appeared  than  he  distinguished  himself,  by 
knowledge,  capacity,  and  promptitude. 

Mr.  Jefferson  appears  to  have  been  imbued  with  an  early  love  of 
letters  and  science,  and  to  have  cherished  a  strong  disposition  to 
pursue  these  objects.  To  the  physical  sciences,  especially,  and  to 
ancient  classic  literature,  he  is  understood  to  have  had  a  warm  at- 
tachment, and  never  entirely  to  have  lost  sight  of  them,  in  the  midst 
of  the  busiest  occupations.  But  the  times  were  times  for  action, 
rather  than  for  contemplation.  The  country  was  to  be  defended, 
and  to  be  saved,  before  it  could  be  enjoyed.  Philosophic  leisure 
and  literary  pursuits,  and  even  the  objects  of  professional  attention, 
were  all  necessarily  postponed  to  the  urgent  calls  of  the  public  ser- 
vice. The  exigency  of  the  country  made  the  same  demand  on  Mr. 
Jefferson  that  it  made  on  others  who  had  the  ability  and  the  dispo- 
sition to  serve  it;  and  he  obeyed  the  call;  thinking  and  feeling,  in 
this  respect,  with  the  great  Roman  orator;  Quis  enim  est  tarn  cupi- 
dus  in  ptrspicienda  cognoscendaque  rerum  natura,  ut,  si  ei  tractanti  con- 
iemplaniique  res  cognilione  dignissimas  subito  sit  allatum  perictdum  dis- 
crimenque  patriae,  cut  subvenire  opitidarique  possit,  non  ilia  omnia  re' 
linquat  atque  abjiciat,  etiam  si  dinumerare  se  Stellas,  aid  meiiri  mundi 
magnitadinem  posse  arbitrelurl 

Entering,  with  all  his  heart,  into  the  cause  of  liberty,  his  ability, 
patriotism,  and  power  with  the  pen  naturally  drew  upon  him  a  large 
participation  in  the  most  important  concerns.  Wherever  he  was, 
there  was  found  a  soul  devoted  to  the  cause,  power  to  defend  and 
maintain  it,  and  willingness  to  incur  all  its  hazards.  In  1774  he 
published  a  Summary  View  of  the  Rights  of  British  America,  a 
valuable  production  among  those  intended  to  show  the  dangers  which 
threatened  the  liberties  of  the  country,  and  to  encourage  the  people 
in  their  defence.  In  June  1775  he  was  elected  a  member  of  the 
Continental  Congress,  as  successor  to  Peyton  Randolph,  who  had 
retired  on  account  of  ill  health,  and  took  his  seat  in  that  body  on 
the  21st  of  the  same  month. 


80 

And  now,  fellow  citizens,  without  pursuing  the  biography  of  these 
illustrious  men  further,  for  the  present,  let  us  turn  our  attention  to 
the  most  prominent  act  of  their  lives,  their  participation  in  the 
DECLARATION  of  INDEPENDENCE. 

Preparatory  to  the  introduction  of  that  important  measure,  a  com- 
mittee, at  the  head  of  which  was  Mr.  Adams,  had  reported  a  reso- 
lution, which  Congress  adopted  the  10th  of  May,  recommending,  in 
substance,  to  all  the  colonies  which  had  not  already  established  gov- 
ernments suited  to  the  exigencies  of  their  affairs,  to  adopt  such  gov- 
ernment, as  would,  in  the  opinion  of  the  representatives  of  the  people,  best 
conduce  to  the  happiness  and  safety  of  their  constituents  in  particular, 
and  America  in  general. 

This  significant  vote  was  soon  followed  by  the  direct  proposition, 
which  Richard  Henry  Lee  had  the  honor  to  submit  to  Congress, 
by  resolution,  on  the  7th  day  of  June.  The  published  journal  does 
not  expressly  state  it,  but  there  is  no  doubt,  I  suppose,  that  this 
resolution  was  in  the  same  words,  when  originally  submitted  by  Mr. 
Lee,  as  when  finally  passed.  Having  been  discussed,  on  Saturday 
the  8th,  and  Monday  the  10th  of  June,  this  resolution  was  on  the 
last  mentioned  day  postponed,  for  further  consideration,  to  the  first 
day  of  July;  and,  at  the  same  time  it  was  voted,  that  a  committee  be 
appointed  to  prepare  a  declaration,  to  the  effect  of  the  resolution. 
This  committee  was  elected  by  ballot,  on  the  following  day,  and 
consisted  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  John  Adams,  Benjamin  Franklin, 
Roger  Sherman,  and  Robert  R.  Livingston. 

It  is  usual,  when  committees  are  elected  by  ballot,  that  their 
members  are  arranged,  in  order,  according  to  the  number  of  votes 
which  each  has  received.  Mr.  Jefferson,  therefore,  had  received 
the  highest,  and  Mr.  Adams  the  next  highest  number  of  votes. 
The  difference  is  said  to  have  been  but  of  a  single  vote.  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson and  Mr.  Adams,  standing  thus  at  the  head  of  the  committee, 
were  requested,  by  the  other  members,  to  act  as  a  sub-committee, 
to  prepare  the  draught;  and  Mr.  Jefferson  drew  up  the  paper.  The 
original  draught,  as  brought  by  him  from  his  study,  and  submitted  to 
the  other  members  of  the  committee,  with  interlineations  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Dr.  Franklin,  and  others  in  that  of  Mr.  Adams,  was  in 
Mr.  Jefferson's  possession  at  the  time  of  his  death.  The  merit  of 
this  paper  is  Mr.  Jefferson's.  Some  changes  were  made  in  it,  on 
the  suggestion  of  other  members  of  the  committee,  and  others  by 
Congress  while  it  was  under  discussion.  But  none  of  them  altered 
the  tone,  the  frame,  the  arrangement,  or  the  general  character  of 
the  instrument.  As  a  composition,  the  declaration  is  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son's. It  is  the  production  of  his  mind,  and  the  high  honor  of  it 
belongs  to  him,  clearly  and  absolutely. 

It  has  sometimes  been  said,  as  if  it  were  a  derogation  from  the 
merits  of  this  paper,  that  it  contains  nothing  new;  that  it  only  states 
grounds  of  proceeding,  and  presses  topics  of  argument,  which  had 
often  been  stated  and  pressed  before.  But  it  was  not  the  object  of 
the  declaration  to  produce  anything  new.  It  was  not  to  invent 
reasons  for  independence,  but  to  state  those  which  governed  the 
Congress.  For  great  and  sufficient  causes,  it  was  proposed  to  de- 
clare independence;  and  the  proper  business  of  the  paper  to  be 


81 

drawn,  was  to  set  forth  those  causes,  and  justify  the  authors  of  the 
measure,  in  any  event  of  fortune,  to  the  country,  and  to  posterity. 
The  cause  of  American  independence,  moreover,  was  now  to  be 
presented  to  the  world,  in  such  manner,  if  it  might  so  be,  as  to  en- 
gage its  sympathy,  to  command  its  respect,  to  attract  its  admiration; 
and  in  an  assembly  of  most  able  and  distinguished  men,  Thomas 
Jefferson  had  the  high  honor  of  being  the  selected  advocate  of 
this  cause.  To  say  that  he  performed  his  great  work  well,  would 
be  doing  him  injustice.  To  say  that  he  did  excellently  well,  admi- 
rably well,  would  be  inadequate  and  halting  praise.  Let  us  rather 
say,  that  he  so  discharged  the  duty  assigned  him,  that  all  Americans 
may  well  rejoice  that  the  work  of  drawing  the  title  deed  of  thei? 
liberties  devolved  on  his  hands. 

With  all  its  merits,  there  are  those  who  have  thought  that  there 
was  one  thing  in  the  declaration  to  be  regretted;  and  that  is,  the 
asperity  and  apparent  anger  with  which  it  speaks  of  the  person  of 
the  king;  the  industrious  ability  with  which  it  accumulates  and 
charges  upon  him,  all  the  injuries  which  the  colonies  had  suffered 
from  the  mother  country.  Possibly  some  degree  of  injustice,  now 
or  hereafter,  at  home  or  abroad,  may  be  done  to  the  character  of 
Mr.  Jefferson,  if  this  part  of  the  declaration  be  not  placed  in  its 
proper  light.  Anger  or  resentment,  certainly,  much  less  personal 
reproach  and  invective,  could  not  properly  find  place,  in  a  composi- 
tion of  such  high  dignity,  and  of  such  lofty  and  permanent  char- 
acter. 

A  single  reflection  on  the  original  ground  of  dispute,  between 
England  and  the  colonies,  is  sufficient  to  remove  any  unfavorable 
impression,  in  this  respect. 

The  inhabitants  of  all  the  colonies,  while  colonies,  admitted  them- 
selves bound  by  their  allegiance  to  the  king;  but  they  disclaimed, 
altogether,  the  authority  of  parliament;  holding  themselves,  in  this 
respect,  to  resemble  the  condition  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  before 
the  respective  unions  of  those  kingdoms  with  England,  when  they 
acknowledged  allegiance  to  the  same  king,  but  each  had  its  separate 
legislature.  The  tie,  therefore,  which  our  revolution  was  to  break, 
did  not  subsist  between  us  and  the  British  parliament,  or  between 
us  and  the  British  government,  in  the  aggregate;  but  directly  be- 
tween us  and  the  king  himself.  The  colonies  had  never  admitted 
themselves  subject  to  parliament.  That  was  precisely  the  point  of 
the  original  controversy.  They  had  uniformly  denied  that  parlia- 
ment had  authority  to  make  laws  for  them.  There  was,  therefore, 
no  subjection  to  parliament  to  be  thrown  off.  *  But  allegiance  to 
the  king  did  exist,  and  had  been  uniformly  acknowledged;  and  down 

*  This  question,  of  the  power  of  parliament  over  the  colonies,  was  discussed  with  singu- 
lar ability,  by  Gov.  Hutchinson  on  the  one  side,  and  the  house  of  representatives  of  Mas- 
sachusetts on  the  other,  in  1773.  The  argument  of  the  House  is  in  the  form  of  an  answer 
to  the  governor's  message,  and  was  reported  by  Mr.  Samuel  Adams,  Mr.  Hancock,  Mr. 
Hawley,  Mr.  Bowers,  Mr.  Hobson,  Mr.  Foster,  Mr.  Phillips,  and  Mr.  Thayer.  As  the 
power  of  the  parliament  had  been  acknowledged,  so  far  at  least  as  to  affect  us  by  laws  of 
trade,  it  was  not  easy  to  settle  the  line  of  distinction.  It  was  thought  however  to  be  very 
clear,  that  the  charters  of  the  colonies  had  exempted  them  from  the  general  legislation  of 
the  British  parliament.     See  Massachusetts  State  Papers,  p.  351. 

11 


82 

to  1775  the  most  solemn  assurances  had  been  given  that  it  was  not 
intended  to  break  that  allegiance,  or  to  throw  it  off.  Therefore,  as 
the  direct  object,  and  only  effect  of  the  declaration,  according  to  the 
principles  on  which  the  controversy  had  been  maintained,  on  our  part, 
was  to  sever  the  tie  of  allegiance  which  bound  us  to  the  king,  it  was 
properly  and  necessarily  founded  on  acts  of  the  crown  itself,  as  its 
justifying  causes.  Parliament  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned,  in  the 
whole  instrument.  When  odious  and  oppressive  acts  are  referred 
to,  it  is  done  by  charging  the  king  Avith  confederating,  with  others, 
"  in  pretended  acts  of  legislation;"  the  object  being,  constantly,  to 
hold  the  king  himself  directly  responsible  for  those  measures  which 
were  the  grounds  of  separation.  Even  the  precedent  of  the  Eng- 
lish revolution  was  not  overlooked,  and  in  this  case,  as  well  as  in 
that,  occasion  was  found  to  say  that  the  king  had  abdicated  the  gov- 
ernment. Consistency  with  the  principles  upon  which  resistance 
began,  and  with  all  the  previous  state  papers  issued  by  Congress, 
required  that  the  declaration  should  be  bottomed  on  the  misgovern- 
ment  of  the  king;  and  therefore  it  was  properly  framed  with  that 
aim  and  to  that  end.  The  king  was  known,  indeed,  to  have  acted, 
as  in  other  cases,  by  his  ministers,  and  with  his  parliament;  but  as 
our  ancestors  had  never  admitted  themselves  subject  either  to  min- 
isters or  to  parliament,  there  were  no  reasons  to  be  given  for  now 
refusing  obedience  to  their  authority.  This  clear  and  obvious  ne- 
cessity of  founding  the  declaration  on  the  misconduct  of  the  king 
himself,  gives  to  that  instrument  its  personal  application,  and  its 
character  of  direct  and  pointed  accusation. 

The  declaration  having  been  reported  to  Congress,  by  the  com- 
mittee, the  resolution  itself  was  taken  up  and  debated  on  the  first 
day  of  July,  and  again  on  the  second,  on  which  last  day  it  was 
agreed  to  and  adopted,  in  these  words, 

Resolved,  That  these  united  colonies  are,  and  or  right  ought 
to  be,  free  and  independent  states;  that  they  are  absolved 
from  all  allegiance  to  the  british  crown,  and  that  all  polit- 
ical connexion  between  them,  and  the  state  of  great  britain 
is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved. 

Having  thus  passed  the  main  resolution,  Congress  proceeded  to 
consider  the  reported  draught  of  the  declaration.  It  was  discussed  on 
the  second,  and  third,  and  fourth  days  of  the  month,  in  committee 
of  the  whole;  and  on  the  last  of  those  days,  being  reported  from 
that  committee,  it  received  the  final  approbation  and  sanction  of 
Congress.  It  was  ordered,  at  the  same  time,  that  copies  be  sent  to 
the  several  States,  and  that  it  be  proclaimed  at  the  head  of  the  ar- 
my. The  declaration  thus  published,  did  not  bear  the  names  of  the 
members,  for  as  yet  it  had  not  been  signed  by  them.  It  was  au- 
thenticated, like  other  papers  of  the  Congress,  by  the  signatures  of 
the  president  and  secretary.  On  the  19th  of  July,  as  appears  by 
the  secret  journal,  Congress  "Resolved,  that  the  declaration,  passed 
on  the  fourth,  be  fairly  engrossed  on  parchment,  with  the  title  and 
style  of  '  The  unanimous  declaration  of  the  Thirteen  United 
States  of  America;'  and  that  the  same,  when  engrossed,  be  sign- 
ed by  every  member  of  Congress."  And  on  the  second  day  of 
August,  following,  "  the  declaration,  being  engrossed  and  compared 


83 

at  the  table,  was  signed  by  the  members."  So  that  it  happens,  fel 
low  citizens,  that  we  pay  these  honors  to  their  memory,  on  the  an 
niversary  of  that  day,  on  which  these  great  men  actually  signed 
their  names  to  the  declaration.  The  declaration  was  thus  made, 
that  is,  it  passed,  and  was  adopted,  as  an  act  of  Congress,  on  the 
fourth  of  July;  it  was  then  signed  and  certified  by  the  president  and 
secretary,  like  other  acts.  The  fourth  of  July,  therefore,  is  the 
anniversary  of  the  declaration.  But  the  signatures  of  the 
members  present  were  made  to  it,  being  then  engrossed  on  parch- 
ment, on  the  second  day  of  August.  Absent  members  afterwards 
signed,  as  they  came  in;  and  indeed  it  bears  the  names  of  some 
who  were  not  chosen  members  of  Congress,  until  after  the  fourth 
of  July.  The  interest  belonging  to  the  subject,  will  be  sufficient, 
I  hope,  to  justify  these  details. 

The  Congress  of  the  Revolution,  fellow  citizens,  sat  with  closed 
doors,  and  no  report  of  its  debates  was  ever  taken.  The  discus- 
sion, therefore,  which  accompanied  this  great  measure,  has  never 
been  preserved,  except  in  memory,  and  by  tradition.  But  it  is,  I 
believe,  doing  no  injustice  to  others,  to  say,  that  the  general  opin- 
ion was,  and  uniformly  has  been,  that  in  debate,  on  the  side  of  in- 
dependence, John  Adams  had  no  equal.  The  great  author,  of  the 
declaration  himself  has  expressed  that  opinion  uniformly  and  strong- 
ly. "  John  Adams,"  said  he,  in  the  hearing  of  him  who  has  now 
the  honor  to  address  you,  "John  Adams  was  our  colossus  on  the 
floor.  Not  graceful,  not  elegant,  not  always  fluent,  in  his  public 
addresses,  he  yet  came  out  with  a  power,  both  of  thought  and  of 
expression,  which  moved  us  from  our  seats." 

For  the  part  which  he  was  here  to  perform,  Mr.  Adams  doubtless 
was  eminently  fitted.  He  possessed  a  bold  spirit,  which  disregarded 
danger,  and  a  sanguine  reliance  on  the  goodness  of  the  cause,  and 
the  virtues  of  the  people,  which  led  him  to  overlook  all  obstacles. 
His  character,  too,  had  been  formed  in  troubled  times.  He  had 
been  rocked  in  the  early  storms  of  the  controversy,  and  had  acquir- 
ed a  decision  and  a  hardihood,  proportioned  to  the  severity  of  the 
discipline  which  he  had  undergone. 

He  not  only  loved  the  American  cause  devoutly,  but  had  studied 
and  understood  it.  It  was  all  familiar  to  him.  He  had  tried  his 
powers,  on  the  questions  which  it  involved,  often,  and  in  various 
ways;  and  had  brought  to  their  consideration  whatever  of  argument 
or  illustration  the  history  of  his  own  country,  the  history  of  England, 
or  the  stores  of  ancient  or  of  legal  learning  could  furnish.  Every 
grievance,  enumerated  in  the  long  catalogue  of  the  declaration,  had 
been  the  subject  of  his  discussion,  and  the  object  of  his  remonstrance 
and  reprobation.  From  1 760,  the  colonies,  the  rights  of  the  colonies, 
the  liberties  of  the  colonies,  and  the  wrongs  inflicted  on  the  colonies, 
had  engaged  his  constant  attention;  and  it  has  surprised  those,  who 
have  had  the  opportunity  of  observing,  with  what  full  remembrance, 
and  with  what  prompt  recollection,  he  could  refer,  in  his  extreme 
old  age,  to  every  act  of  Parliament  affecting  the  colonies,  distin- 
guishing and  stating  their  respective  titles,  sections,  and  provisions; 
and  to  all  the  colonial  memorials,  remonstrances,  and  petitions,  with 
whatever  else  belonged  to  the  intimate  and  exact  history  of  the 


84       -i 

times  from  that  year  to  1775.  It  was  in  his  own  judgment,  between 
these  years,  that  the  American  people  came  to  a  full  understanding 
and  thorough  knowledge  of  their  rights,  and  to  a  fixed  resolution 
of  maintaining  them;  and  bearing  himself  an  active  part  in  all  im- 
portant transactions,  the  controversy  with  England  being  then,  in 
effect,  the  business  of  his  life,  facts,  dates  and  particulars  made  an 
impression  which  was  never  effaced.  He  was  prepared,  therefore, 
by  education  and  discipline,  as  well  as  by  natural  talent  and  natural 
temperament,  for  the  part  which  he  was  now  to  act. 

The  eloquence  of  Mr.  Adams  resembled  his  general  character, 
and  formed,  indeed,  a  part  of  it.  It  was  bold,  manly,  and  energetic; 
and  such  the  crisis  required.  When  public  bodies  are  to  be  addres- 
sed on  momentous  occasions,  when  great  interests  are  at  stake,  and 
strong  passions  excited,  nothing  is  valuable,  in  speech,  farther  than 
it  is  connected  with  high  intellectual  and  moral  endowments.  Clear- 
ness, force,  and  earnestness  are  the  qualities  which  produce  con- 
viction. True  eloquence,  indeed,  does  not  consist  in  speech.  It 
cannot  be  brought  from  far.  Labor  and  learning  may  toil  for  it,  but 
they  will  toil  in  vain.  Words  and  phrases  may  be  marshalled  in 
every  way,  but  they  cannot  compass  it.  It  must  exist  in  the  man, 
in  the  subject,  and  in  the  occasion.  Affected  passion,  intense  ex- 
pression, the  pomp  of  declamation,  all  may  aspire  after  it — they  can- 
not reach  it.  It  comes,  if  it  come  at  all,  like  the  outbreaking  of  a 
fountain  from  the  earth,  or  the  bursting  forth  of  volcanic  fires,  with 
spontaneous,  original,  native  force.  The  graces  taught  in  the  schools, 
the  costly  ornaments,  and  studied  contrivances  of  speech,  shock  and 
disgust  men,  when  their  own  lives,  and  the  fate  of  their  wives,  their 
children,  and  their  country,  hang  on  the  decision  of  the  hour.  Then 
words  have  lost  their  power,  rhetoric  is  vain,  and  all  elaborate  ora- 
tory contemptible.  Even  genius  itself  then  feels  rebuked,  and  sub- 
dued, as  in  the  presence  of  higher  qualities.  Then,  patriotism  is 
eloquent;  then,  self-devotion  is  eloquent.  The  clear  conception, 
outrunning  the  deductions  of  logic,  the  high  purpose,  the  firm  re- 
solve, the  dauntless  spirit,  speaking  on  the  tongue,  beaming  from 
the  eye,  informing  every  feature,  and  urging  the  whole  man  onward, 
right  onward  to  his  object — this,  this  is  eloquence;  or  rather  it  is 
something  greater  and  higher  than  all  eloquence,  it  is  action,  noble, 
sublime,  godlike  action. 

In  July  1776,  the  controversy  had  passed  the  stage  of  argument. 
An  appeal  had  been  made  to  force,  and  opposing  armies  were  in  the 
field.  Congress,  then,  was  to  decide  whether  the  tie  which  had  so 
long  bound  us  to  the  parent  state,  was  to  be  severed  at  once,  and 
severed  forever.  All  the  colonies  had  signified  their  resolution  to 
abide  by  this  decision,  and  the  people  looked  for  it  with  the  most  in- 
tense anxiety.  And  surely,  fellow  citizens,  never,  never  were  men 
called  to  a  more  important  political  deliberation.  If  we  contemplate 
it  from  the  point  where  they  then  stood,  no  question  could  be  more 
full  of  interest;  if  we  look  at  it  now,  and  judge  of  its  importance  by 
its  effects,  it  appears  in  still  greater  magnitude. 

Let  us,  then,  bring  before  us  the  assembly,  which  was  about  to 
decide  a  question  thus  big  with  the  fate  of  empire.  Let  us  open 
their  doors,  and  look  in  upon  their  deliberations.     Let  us  survey  the 


85 

anxious  and  care-worn  countenances,  let  us  hear  the  firm-toned 
voices,  of  this  band  of  patriots. 

Hancock  presides  over  the  solemn  sitting;  and  one  of  those  not 
yet  prepared  to  pronounce  for  absolute  independence,  is  on  the  floor, 
and  is  urging  his  reasons  for  dissenting  from  the  declaration. 

"Let  us  pause!  This  step,  once  taken,  cannot  be  retraced. 
This  resolution,  once  passed,  will  cut  off  all  hope  of  reconciliation. 
If  success  attend  the  arms  of  England,  we  shall  then  be  no  longer 
colonies,  with  charters,  and  with  privileges;  these  will  all  be  forfeit- 
ed by  this  act;  and  we  shall  be  in  the  condition  of  other  conquered 
people,  at  the  mercy  of  the  conquerors.  For  ourselves,  we  may  be 
ready  to  run  the  hazard;  but  are  we  ready  to  carry  the  country  to 
that  length?  Is  success  so  probable  as  to  justify  it?  Where  is  the 
military,  where  the  naval  power,  by  which  we  are  to  resist  the  whole 
strength  of  the  arm  of  England,  for  she  will  exert  that  strength  to 
the  utmost?  Can  we  rely  on  the  constancy  and  perseverance  of  the 
people  ?  or  will  they  not  act,  as  the  people  of  other  countries  have 
acted,  and,  wearied  with  a  long  war,  submit,  in  the  end,  to  a  worse 
oppression  ?  While  we  stand  on  our  old  ground,  and  insist  on  redress 
of  grievances,  we  know  we  are  right,  and  are  not  answerable  for  con- 
sequences. Nothing,  then,  can  be  imputable  to  us.  But  if  we  now 
change  our  object,  carry  our  pretensions  further,  and  set  up  for  abso- 
lute independence,  we  shall  lose  the  sympathy  of  mankind.  We 
shall  no  longer  be  defending  what  we  possess,  but  struggling  for 
something  which  we  never  did  possess,  and  which  we  have  solemnly 
and  uniformly  disclaimed  all  intention  of  pursuing,  from  the  very  out- 
set of  the  troubles.  Abandoning  thus  our  old  ground,  of  resistance 
only  to  arbitrary  acts  of  oppression,  the  nations  will  believe  the 
whole  to  have  been  mere  pretence,  and  they  will  look  on  us,  not  as 
injured,  but  as  ambitious,  subjects.  I  shudder,  before  this  responsi- 
bility. It  will  be  on  us,  if  relinquishing  the  ground  we  have  stood 
on  so  long,  and  stood  on  so  safely,  we  now  proclaim  independence, 
and  carry  on  the  war  for  that  object,  while  these  cities  burn,  these 
pleasant  fields  whiten  and  bleach  with  the  bones  of  their  owners,  and 
these  streams  run  blood.  It  will  be  upon  us,  it  will  be  upon  us,  if 
failing  to  maintain  this  unseasonable  and  ill-judged  declaration,  a 
sterner  despotism,  maintained  by  military  power,  shall  be  established 
over  our  posterity,  when  we  ourselves,  given  up  by  an  exhausted, 
a  harassed,  a  misled  people,  shall  have  expiated  our  rashness  and 
atoned  for  our  presumption,  on  the  scaffold." 

It  was  for  Mr.  Adams  to  reply  to  arguments  like  these.  We 
know  his  opinions,  and  we  know  his  character.  He  would  com- 
mence with  his  accustomed  directness  and  earnestness. 

"  Sink  or  swim,  live  or  die,  survive  or  perish,  I  give  my  hand, 
and  my  heart,  to  this  vote.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  in  the  beginning, 
we  aimed  not  at  independence.  But  there's  a  Divinity  which  shapes 
our  ends.  The  injustice  of  England  has  driven  us  to  arms;  and, 
blinded  to  her  own  interest  for  our  good,  she  has  obstinately  persis- 
ted, till  independence  is  now  within  our  grasp.  We  have  but  to 
reach  forth  to  it,  and  it  is  ours.  Why  then  should  we  defer  the 
declaration?  Is  any  man  so  weak  as  now  to  hope  for  a  reconcilia- 
tion with  England,  which  shall  leave  either  safety  to  the  country 


86 

and  its  liberties,  or  safety  to  his  own  life,  and  his  own  honor?  Are 
not  you,  sir,  who  sit  in  that  chair,  is  not  he,  our  venerable  colleague 
near  you,  are  you  not  both  already  the  proscribed  and  predestined 
objects  of  punishment  and  of  vengeance?  Cut  off  from  all  hope  of 
royal  clemency,  what  are  you,  what  can  you  be,  while  the  power 
of  England  remains,  but  outlaws?  If  we  postpone  independence, 
do  we  mean  to  carry  on,  or  to  give  up,  the  war?  Do  we  mean  to 
submit  to  the  measures  of  parliament,  Boston  port-bill  and  all?  Do 
we  mean  to  submit,  and  consent  that  we  ourselves  shall  be  ground 
to  powder,  and  our  country  and  its  rights  trodden  down  in  the  dust? 
I  know  we  do  not  mean  to  submit.  We  never  shall  submit.  Do  we 
intend  to  violate  that  most  solemn  obligation  ever  entered  into  by 
men,  that  plighting,  before  God,  of  our  sacred  honor  to  Washington, 
when  putting  him  forth  to  incur  the  dangers  of  war,  as  well  as  the 
political  hazards  of  the  times,  we  promised  to  adhere  to  him,  in  every 
extremity,  with  our  fortunes  and  our  lives  ?  I  know  there  is  not  a  man 
here,  who  would  not  rather  see  a  general  conflagration  sweep  over  the 
land,  or  an  earthquake  sink  it,.than  one  jot  or  tittle  oi'  that  plighted 
faith  fall  to  the  ground.  For  myself,  having,  twelve  months  ago,  in 
this  place,  moved  you,  that  George  Washington  be  appointed  com- 
mander of  the  forces,  raised  or  to  be  raised,  for  defence  of  American 
liberty,  may  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning,  and  my  tongue 
cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth,  if  I  hesitate  or  waver,  in  the  sup- 
port I  give  him.  The  war,  then,  must  go  on.  We  must  fight  it 
through.  And  if  the  war  must  go  on,  why  put  off  longer  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence?  That  measure  will  strengthen  us.  It 
will  give  us  character  abroad.  The  nations  will  then  treat  with  us, 
which  they  never  can  do  while  we  acknowledge  ourselves  subjects, 
in  arms  against  our  sovereign.  Nay  I  maintain  that  England,  her- 
self, will  sooner  treat  for  peace  with  us  on  the  footing  of  Indepen- 
dence, than  consent,  by  repealing  her  acts,  to  acknowledge  that  her 
whole  conduct  towards  us  has  been  a  course  of  injustice  and  op- 
pression. Her  pride  will  be  less  wounded,  by  submitting  to  that 
course  of  things  which  now  predestinates  our  independence,  than 
by  yielding  the  points  in  controversy  to  her  rebellious  subjects. 
The  former  she  would  regard  as  the  result  of  fortune;  the  latter  she 
would  feel  as  her  own  deep  disgrace.  Why  then,  why  then,  sir,  do 
we  not  as  soon  as  possible,  change  this  from  a  civil  to  a  national  war? 
And  since  we  must  fight  it  through,  why  not  put  ourselves  in  a  state 
to  enjoy  all  the  benefits  of  victory,  if  we  gain  the  victory? 

"  If  we  fail,  it  can  be  no  worse  for  us.  But  we  shall  not  fail.  The 
cause  will  raise  up  armies;  the  cause  will  create  navies.  The  peo- 
ple, the  people,  if  we  are  true  to  them,  will  carry  us,  and  will  carry 
themselves,  gloriously,  through  this  struggle.  I  care  not  how  fickle 
other  people  have  been  found.  I  know  the  people  of  these  colonies, 
and  I  know  that  resistance  to  British  aggression  is  deep  and  settled 
in  their  hearts  and  cannot  be  eradicated.  Every  colony,  indeed,  has 
expressed  its  willingness  to  follow,  if  we  but  take  the  lead.  Sir,  the 
declaration  will  inspire  the  people  with  increased  courage.  Instead 
of  a  long  and  bloody  war  for  restoration  of  privileges,  for  redress  of 
grievances,  for  chartered  immunities,  held  under  a  British  king,  set 
before  them  the  glorious  object  of  entire  independence,  and  it  will 


87 

breathe  into  them  anew  the  breath  of  life.  Read  this  declaration  at 
the  head  of  the  army;  every  sword  will  be  drawn  from  its  scabbard, 
and  the  solemn  vow  uttered,  to  maintain  it,  or  to  perish  on  the  bed 
of  honor.  Publish  it  from  the  pulpit;  religion  will  approve  it,  and 
the  love  of  religious  liberty  will  cling  round  it,  resolved  to  stand  with 
it,  or  fall  with  it.  Send  it  to  the  public  halls;  proclaim  it  there;  let 
them  hear  it,  who  heard  the  first  roar  of  the  enemy's  cannon;  let 
them  see  it,  who  saw  their  brothers  and  their  sons  fall  on  the  field  of 
Bunkerhill,  and  in  the  streets  of  Lexington  and  Concord,  and  the 
very  walls  will  cry  out  in  its  support. 

"  Sir,  I  know  the  uncertainty  of  human  affairs,  but  I  see,  I  see 
clearly,  through  this  day's  business.  You  and  I,  indeed,  may  rue 
it.  We  may  not  live  to  the  time,  when  this  declaration  shall  be  made 
good.  We  may  die;  die,  colonists;  die,  slaves;  die,  it  may  be,  igno- 
miniously  and  on  the  scaffold.  Be  it  so.  Be  it  so.  If  it  be  the 
pleasure  of  Heaven  that  my  country  shall  require  the  poor  offering 
of  my  life,  the  victim  shall  be  ready,  at  the  appointed  hour  of  sacri- 
fice, come  when  that  hour  may.  But  while  I  do  live,  let  me  have  a 
country,  or  at  least  the  hope  of  a  country,  and  that  a  free  country. 

"  But  whatever  may  be  our  fate,  be  assured,  be  assured,  that  this 
declaration  will  stand.  It  may  cost  treasure,  and  it  may  cost  blood; 
but  it  will  stand,  and  it  will  richly  compensate  for  both.  Through 
the  thick  gloom  of  the  present,  I  see  the  brightness  of  the  future, 
as  the  sun  in  heaven.  We  shall  make  this  a  glorious,  an  immortal 
day.  When  we  are  in  our  graves,  our  children  will  honor  it.  They 
will  celebrate  it,  with  thanksgiving,  with  festivity,  with  bonfires,  and 
illuminations.  On  its  annual  return  they  will  shed  tears,  copious, 
gushing  tears,  not  of  subjection  and  slavery,  not  of  agony  and  dis- 
tress, but  of  exultation,  of  gratitude,  and  of  joy.  Sir,  before  God, 
I  believe  the  hour  is  come.  My  judgment  approves  this  measure, 
and  my  whole  heart  is  in  it.  All  that  I  have,  and  all  that  I  am,  and 
all  that  I  hope,  in  this  life,  I  am  now  ready  here  to  stake  upon  it; 
and  I  leave  off,  as  I  begun,  that  live  or  die,  survive  or  perish,  I  am 
for  the  declaration.  It  is  my  living  sentiment,  and  by  the  blessing 
of  God  it  shall  be  my  dying  sentiment;  independence,  noiv;  and  in- 
dependence forever." 

And  so  that  day  shall  be  honored,  illustrious  prophet  and  patriot! 
so  that  day  shall  be  honored,  and  as  often  as  it  returns,  thy  renown 
shall  come  along  with  it,  and  the  glory  of  thy  life,  like  the  day  of  thy 
death,  shall  not  fail  from  the  remembrance  of  men. 

It  would  be  unjust,  fellow  citizens,  on  this  occasion,  while  we 
express  our  veneration  for  him  who  is  the  immediate  subject  of  these 
remarks,  were  we  to  omit  a  most  respectful,  affectionate,  and  grate- 
ful mention  of  those  other  great  men,  his  colleagues,  who  stood 
with  him,  and  with  the  same  spirit,  the  same  devotion,  took  part  in 
the  interesting  transaction.  Hancock,  the  proscribed  Hancock, 
exiled  from  his  home  by  a  military  governor,  cut  off,  by  proclama- 
tion, from  the  mercy  of  the  crown,  Heaven  reserved,  for  him,  the 
distinguished  honor  of  putting  this  great  question  to  the  vote,  and 
of  writing  his  own  name  first,  and  most  conspicuously,  on  that 
parchment  which  spoke  defiance  to  the  power  of  the  crown  of  Eng- 
land.    There,  too,  is  the  name  of  that  other  proscribed  patriot, 


88 

Samuel  Adams;  a  man  who  hungered  and  thirsted  for  the  indepen- 
dence of  his  country;  who  thought  the  declaration  halted  and 
lingered,  being  himself  not  only  ready,  but  eager,  for  it,  long  before 
it  was  proposed;  a  man  of  the  deepest  sagacity,  the  clearest  fore- 
sight, and  the  profoundest  judgment  in  men.  And  there  is  Gerry, 
himself  among  the  earliest  and  the  foremost  of  the  patriots,  found, 
when  the  battle  of  Lexington  summoned  them  to  common  councils, 
by  the  side  of  Warren;  a  man  who  lived  to  serve  his  country  at 
home  and  abroad,  and  to  die  in  the  second  place  in  the  government 
There,  too,  is  the  inflexible,  the  upright,  the  Spartan  character, 
Robert  Treat  Paine.  He,  also,  lived  to  serve  his  country  through 
the  struggle,  and  then  withdrew  from  her  councils,  only  that  he 
might  give  his  labors  and  his  life  to.  his  native  State,  in  another  re- 
lation. These  names,  fellow  citizens,  are  the  treasures  of  the  com- 
monwealth; and  they  are  treasures  which  grow  brighter  by  time. 

It  is  now  necessary  to  resume,  and  to  finish  with  great  brevity, 
the  notice  of  the  lives  of  those,  whose  virtues  and  services  we  have 
met  to  commemorate. 

Mr.  Adams  remained  in  Congress  from  its  first  meeting,  till  Nov- 
ember 1777,  when  he  was  appointed  minister  to  France.  He  pro- 
ceeded on  that  service,  in  the  February  following,  embarking  in  the 
Boston  frigate,  on  the  shore  of  his  native  town,  at  the  foot  of  Mount 
Wollaston.  The  year  following,  he  was  appointed  commissioner  to 
treat  of  peace  with  England.  Returning  to  the  United  States,  he 
was  a  delegate  from  Braintree  in  the  convention  for  framing  the 
constitution  of  this  commonwealth,  in  1780.  At  the  latter  end  of 
the  same  year,  he  again  went  abroad,  in  the  diplomatic  service  of 
the  country,  and  was  employed  at  various  courts,  and  occupied  with 
various  negotiations,  until  1788.  The  particulars  of  these  interest- 
ing and  important  services  this  occasion  does  not  allow  time  to  re- 
late. In  1782  he  concluded  our  first  treaty  with  Holland.  His 
negotiations  with  that  republic,  his  efforts  to  persuade  the  States- 
General  to  recognise  our  independence,  his  incessant  and  indefati- 
gable exertions  to  represent  the  American  cause  favorably,  on  the 
Continent,  and  to  counteract  the  designs  of  its  enemies,  open  and 
secret;  and  his  successful  undertaking  to  obtain  loans,  on  the  credit 
of  a  nation  yet  new  and  unknown,  are  among  his  most  arduous, 
most  useful,  most  honorable  services.  It  was  his  fortune  to  bear  a 
part  in  the  negotiation  for  peace  with  England,  and  in  something 
more  than  six  years  from  the  declaration  which  he  had  so  strenuous 
ly  supported,  he  had  the  satisfaction  to  see  the  minister  plenipoten- 
tiary of  the  crown  subscribe  to  the  instrument  which  declared,  that 
his  "  Britanic  Majesty  acknowledged  the  United  States  to  be  free, 
sovereign,  and  independent."  In  these  important  transactions,  Mr. 
Adams's  conduct  received  the  marked  approbation  of  Congress,  and 
of  the  country. 

While  abroad,  in  1787,  he  published  his  Defence  of  the  American 
Constitutions;  a  work  of  merit,  and  ability,  though  composed  with 
haste,  on  the  spur  of  a  particular  occasion,  in  the  midst  of  other 
occupations,  and  under  circumstances  not  admitting  of  careful  revi- 
sion. The  immediate  object  of  the  work  was  to  counteract  the 
weight  of  opinions  advanced  by  several  popular  European  writers 


of  that  day,  Mr.  Turgot,  the  Abbe  de  Mably,  and  Dr.  Price,  at  a 
time  when  the  people  of  the  United  States  were  employed  in  forming 
and  revising  their  systems  of  government. 

Returning  to  the  United  States  in  1788,  he  found  the  new  gov- 
ernment about  going  into  operation,  and  was  himself  elected  the 
first  Vice-President,  a  situation  which  he  filled  with  reputation  for 
eight  years,  at  the  expiration  of  which  he  was  raised  to  the  Presi- 
dential chair,  as  immediate  successor  to  the  immortal  Washington. 
In  this  high  station  he  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  after  a 
memorable  controversy,  between  their  respective  friends,  in  1801; 
and  from  that  period  his  manner  of  life  has  been  known  to  all  who 
hear  me.  He  has  lived,  for  five  and  twenty  years,  with  every  en- 
joyment that  could  render  old  age  happy.  Not  inattentive  to  the 
occurrences  of  the  times,  political  cares  have  yet  not  materially,  or 
for  any  long  time,  disturbed  his  repose.  In  1820  he  acted  as  elector 
of  President  and  Vice-President,  and  in  the  same  year  we  saw  him, 
then  at  the  age  of  eighty-five,  a  member  of  the  convention  of  this 
Commonwealth,  called  to  revise  the  constitution.  Forty  years  be- 
fore, he  had  been  one  of  those  who  formed  that  Constitution;  and 
he  had  now  the  pleasure  of  witnessing  that  there  was  little  which 
the  people  desired  to  change.  Possessing  all  his  faculties  to  the 
end  of  his  long  life,  with  an  unabated  love  of  reading  and  contem- 
plation, in  the  centre  of  interesting  circles  of  friendship  and  affec- 
tion, he  was  blessed,  in  his  retirement,  with  whatever  of  repose  and 
felicity,  the  condition  of  man  allows.  He  had,  also,  other  enjoy- 
ments. He  saw  around  him  that  prosperity  and  general  happiness, 
which  had  been  the  object  of  his  public  cares  and  labors.  No  man 
ever  beheld  more  clearly,  and  for  a  longer  time,  the  great  and  bene- 
ficial effects  of  the  services  rendered  by  himself  to  his  country. 
That  liberty,  which  he  so  early  defended,  that  independence  of 
which  he  was  so  able  an  advocate  and  supporter,  he  saw,  we  trust, 
firmly  and  securely  established.  The  population  of  the  country 
thickened  around  him  faster,  and  extended  wider,  than  his  own  san- 
guine predictions  had  anticipated;  and  the  wealth,  respectability, 
and  power  of  the  nation  sprang  up  to  a  magnitude,  which  it  is  quite 
impossible  he  could  have  expected  to  witness,  in  his  day.  He  lived, 
also,  to  behold  those  principles  of  civil  freedom,  which  had  been 
developed,  established,  and  pratically  applied  in  America,  attract 
attention,  command  respect,  and  awaken  imitation,  in  other  regions 
of  the  globe:  and  well  might,  and  well  did  he,  exclaim,  "Where 
will  the  consequences  of  the  American  Revolution  end  ! " 

if  anything  yet  remain  to  fill  this  cup  of  happiness,  let  it  be  ad- 
ded, that  he  lived  to  see  a  great  and  intelligent  people  bestow  the 
highest  honor  in  their  gift,  where  he  had  bestowed  his  own  kindest 
parental  affections,  and  lodged  his  fondest  hopes.  Thus  honored 
in  life,  thus  happy  at  death,  he  saw  the  jubilee,  and  he  died;  and 
with  the  last  prayers  which  trembled  on  his  lips,  was  the  fervent 
supplication  for  his  country,  "  independence  forever." 

Mr.  Jefferson,  having  been  occupied  in  the  years  1778  and  1779, 
in  the  important  service  of  revising  the  laws  of  Yirginia,  was  elect- 
ed governor  of  that  State,   as   successor  to  Patrick  Henry,   and 
held  the  situation  when  the  State  was  invaded  by  the  British  arms. 
12  H* 


90 

In  1781  he  published  his  Notes  on  Virginia,  a  work  which  attracted 
attention  in  Europe  as  well  as  America,  dispelled  many  misconcep- 
tions respecting  this  Continent,  and  gave  its  author  a  place  among 
men  distinguished  for  science.  In  November  1783,  he  again  took 
his  seat  in  the  Continental  Congress,  but  in  the  May  following  was 
appointed  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  to  act  abroad,  in  the  negotiation 
of  commercial  treaties,  with  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Adams.  He 
proceeded  to  France,  in  execution  of  this  mission,  embarking  at 
Boston;  and  that  was  the  only  occasion  on  which  he  ever  visited  this 
place.  In  1785  he  was  appointed  minister  to  France,  the  duties 
of  which  situation  he  continued  to  perform,  until  October  1789, 
when  he  obtained  leave  to  retire,  just  on  the  eve  of  that  tremendous 
Revolution  which  has  so  much  agitated  the  world,  in  our  times. 
Mr.  Jefferson's  discharge  of  his  diplomatic  duties  was  marked  by 
great  ability,  diligence,  and  patriotism;  and  while  he  resided  at  Paris, 
in  one  of  the  most  interesting  periods,  his  character  for  intelligence, 
his  love  of  knowledge,  and  of  the  society  of  learned  men,  distin- 
guished him  in  the  highest  circles  of  the  French  capital.  No  court 
in  Europe  had,  at  that  time,  in  Paris,  a  representative  commanding 
or  enjoying  higher  regard,  for  political  knowledge  or  for  general 
attainment,  than  the  minister  of  this  then  infant  republic.  Imme- 
diately on  his  return  to  his  native  country,  at  the  organization  of 
the  government  under  the  present  Constitution,  his  talents  and  ex- 
perience recommended  him  to  President  Washington,  for  the  first 
office  in  his  gift.  He  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Department 
of  State.  In  this  situation,  also,  he  manifested  conspicuous  ability. 
His  correspondence  with  the  ministers  of  other  powers  residing 
here,  and  his  instructions  to  our  own  diplomatic  agents  abroad,  are 
among  our  ablest  State  Papers.  A  thorough  knowledge  of  the  laws 
and  usages  of  nations,  perfect  acquaintance  with  the  immediate 
subject  before  him,  great  felicity,  and  still  greater  facility,  in  writing, 
show  themselves  in  whatever  effort  his  official  situation  called  on 
him  to  make.  It  is  believed,  by  competent  judges,  that  the  diplo- 
matic intercourse  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  from  the 
first  meeting  of  the  Continental  Congress  in  1774  to  the  present 
time,  taken  together,  would  not  surfer,  in  respect  to  the  talent  with 
which  it  has  been  conducted,  by  comparison  with  anything  which 
other  and  older  states  can  produce;  and  to  the  attainment  of  this 
respectability  and  distinction,  Mr.  Jefferson  has  contributed  his  full 
part. 

On  the  retirement  of  General  Washington  from  the  presidency, 
and  the  election  of  Mr.  Adams  to  that  office,  in  1797,  he  was  chosen 
Vice-President.  While  presiding,  in  this  capacity,  over  the  delib- 
erations of  the  senate,  he  compiled  and  published  a  Manual  of  Par- 
liamentary Practice,  a  work  of  more  labor  and  more  merit,  than  is 
indicated  by  its  size.  It  is  now  received,  as  the  general  standard, 
by  which  proceedings  are  regulated,  not  only  in  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  but  in  most  of  the  other  legislative  bodies  in  the  country. 
In  1801,  he  was  elected  President,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Adams,  and 
re-elected  in  1805,  by  a  vote  approaching  towards  unanimity. 

From  the  time  of  his  final  retirement  from  public  life,  in  1808,  Mr. 
Jefferson  lived,  as  became  a  wise  man.     Surrounded  by  affectionate 


friends,  his  ardor  in  the  pursuit  of  knowledge  undiminished,  with 
uncommon  health,  and  unbroken  spirits,  he  was  able  to  enjoy  large- 
ly the  rational  pleasures  of  life,  and  to  partake  in  that  public  pros- 
perity, which  he  had  so  much  contributed  to  produce.  His  kindness 
and  hospitality,  the  charm  of  his  conversation,  the  ease  of  his  man- 
ners, the  extent  of  his  acquirements,  and  especially  the  full  store  of 
revolutionary  incidents,  which  he  possessed,  and  which  he  knew 
when  and  how  to  dispense,  rendered  his  abode  in  a  high  degree  at- 
tractive to  his  admiring  countrymen,  while  his  high  public  and  scien- 
tific character  drew  towards  him  every  intelligent  and  educated  trav- 
eller from  abroad.  Both  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Jefferson  had  the 
pleasure  of  knowing  that  the  respect,  which  they  so  largely  received, 
was  not  paid  to  their  official  stations.  They  were  not  men  made 
great  by  office;  but  great  men,  on  whom  the  country  for  its  own  ben- 
efit had  conferred  office.  There  was  that  in  them,  which  office  did 
not  give,  and  which  the  relinquishment  of  office  did  not,  and  could 
not,  take  away.  In  their  retirement,  in  the  midst  of  their  fellow 
citizens,  themselves  private  citizens,  they  enjoyed  as  high  regard 
and  esteem,  as  when  filling  the  most  important  places  of  public  trust. 

There  remained  to  Mr.  Jefferson  yet  one  other  work  of  patriotism 
and  beneficence,  the  establishment  of  a  university  in  his  native  state. 
To  this  object  he  devoted  years  of  incessant  and  anxious  attention, 
and  by  the  enlightened  liberality  of  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  and 
the  co-operation  of  other  able  and  zealous  friends,  he  lived  to  see  it 
accomplished.  May  all  success  attend  this  infant  seminary;  and 
may  those  who  enjoy  its  advantages,  as  often  as  their  eyes  shall  rest 
on  the  neighbouring  height,  recollect  what  they  owe  to  their  disinter- 
ested and  indefatigable  benefactor;  and  may  letters  honor  him  who 
thus  labored  in  the  cause  of  letters. 

Thus  useful,  and  thus  respected,  passed  the  old  age  of  Thomas 
Jefferson.  But  time  was  on  its  ever-ceaseless  wing,  and  was  now 
bringing  the  last  hour  of  this  illustrious  man.  He  saw  its  approach, 
with  undisturbed  serenity.  He  counted  the  moments,  as  they  pass- 
ed, and  beheld  that  his  last  sands  were  falling.  That  day,  too,  was 
at  hand,  which  he  had  helped  to  make  immortal.  One  wish,  one 
hope — if  it  were  not  presumptuous — beat  in  his  fainting  breast. 
Could  it  be  so — might  it  please  God — he  would  desire — once  more — 
to  see  the  sun — once  more  to  look  abroad  on  the  scene  around  him, 
on  the  great  day  of  liberty.  Heaven,  in  its  mercy,  fulfilled  that 
prayer.  He  saw  that  sun — he  enjoyed  its  sacred  light — he  thanked 
God,  for  this  mercy,  and  bowed  his  aged  head  to  the  grave.  "  Felix, 
non  vitce  tanlwn  clariiate,  sed  etiam  opporfunitate  mortis." 

The  last  public  labor  of  Mr.  Jefferson  naturally  suggests  the  ex- 
pression of  the  high  praise  which  is  due,  both  to  him  and  to  Mr.  Ad- 
ams, for  their  uniform  and  zealous  attachment  to  learning,  and  to  the 
cause  of  general  knowledge.  Of  the  advantages  of  learning,  indeed, 
and  of  literary  accomplishments,  their  own  characters  were  striking 
recommendations,  and  illustrations.  They  were  scholars,  ripe  and 
good  scholars;  widely  acquainted  with  ancient,  as  well  as  modern 
literature,  and  not  altogether  uninstructed  in  the  deeper  sciences. 
Their  acquirements,  doubtless,  were  different,  and  so  were  the  par- 


92 

ticular  objects  of  their  literary  pursuits;  as  their  tastes  and  charac- 
ters, in  these  respects,  differed  like  those  of  other  men.  Being,  al- 
so, men  of  busy  lives,  with  great  objects,  requiring  action,  constant- 
ly before  them,  their  attainments  in  letters  did  not  become  showy, 
or  obtrusive.  Yet,  I  would  hazard  the  opinion,  that  if  we  could  now 
ascertain  all  the  causes  which  gave  them  eminence  and  distinction, 
in  the  midst  of  the  great  men  with  whom  they  acted,  we  should  find, 
not  among  the  least,  their  early  acquisition  in  literature,  the  resour- 
ces which  it  furnished,  the  promptitude  and  facility  which  it  commu- 
nicated, and  the  wide  field  it  opened,  for  analogy  and  illustration; 
giving  them,  thus,  on  every  subject,  a  larger  view,  and  a  broader 
range,  as  well  for  discussion,  as  for  the  government  of  their  own 
conduct. 

Literature  sometimes,  and  pretensions  to  it  much  oftener,  disgusts, 
by  appearing  to  hang  loosely  on  the  character,  like  something  for- 
eign or  extraneous,  not  a  part,  but  an  ill-adjusted  appendage;  or  by 
seeming  to  overload  and  weigh  it  down,  by  its  unsightly  bulk,  like 
the  productions  of  bad  taste  in  architecture,  where  there  is  massy 
and  cumbrous  ornament,  without  strength  or  solidity  of  column. 
This  has  exposed  learning,  and  especially  classical  learning,  to  re- 
proach. Men  have  seen  that  it  might  exist,  without  mental  superi- 
ority, without  vigor,  without  good  taste,  and  without  utility.  But, 
in  such  cases,  classical  learning  has  only  not  inspired  natural  talent; 
or,  at  most,  it  has  but  made  original  feebleness  of  intellect,  and 
natural  bluntness  of  perception,  something  more  conspicuous.  The 
question,  after  all,  if  it  be  a  question,  is,  whether  literature,  ancient 
as  well  as  modern,  does  not  assist  a  good  understanding,  improve 
natural  good  taste,  add  polished  armor  to  native  strength,  and  ren- 
der its  possessor,  not  only  more  capable  of  deriving  private  happi- 
ness from  contemplation  and  reflection,  but  more  accomplished,  also, 
for  action,  in  the  affairs  of  life,  and  especially  for  public  action. 
Those  whose  memories  we  now  honor,  were  learned  men;  but  their 
learning  was  kept  in  its  proper  place,  and  made  subservient  to  the 
uses  and  objects  of  life.  They  were  scholars  not  common,  nor  su- 
perficial; but  their  scholarship  was  so  in  keeping  with  their  charac- 
ter, so  blended  and  inwrought,  that  careless  observers,  or  bad  judges, 
not  seeing  an  ostentatious  display  of  it,  might  infer  that  it  did  not 
exist;  forgetting,  or  not  knowing,  that  classical  learning,  in  men  who 
act  in  conspicuous  public  stations,  perform  duties  which  exercise 
the  faculty  of  writing,  or  address  popular,  deliberative,  or  judicial 
bodies,  is  often  felt,  where  it  is  little  seen,  and  sometimes  felt  more 
effectually,  because  it  is  not  seen  at  all. 

But  the  cause  of  knowledge,  in  a  more  enlarged  sense,  the  cause 
of  general  knowledge  and  of  popular  education,  had  no  warmer 
friends,  nor  more  powerful  advocates,  than  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson. On  this  foundation,  they  knew,  the  whole  republican  sys- 
tem rested;  and  this  great  and  all-important  truth  they  strove  to 
impress,  by  all  the  means  in  their  power.  In  the  early  publication, 
already  referred  to,  Mr.  Adams  expresses  the  strong  and  just  sen- 
timent, that  the  education  of  the  poor  is  more  important,  even  to  the 
rich  themselves,  than  all  their  own  riches.     On  this  great  truth,  in- 


93 

deed,  is  founded  that  unrivalled,  that  invaluable  political  and  moral 
institution,  our  own  blessing,  and  the  glory  of  our  fathers,  the  New 
England  system  of  free  schools 

As  the  promotion  of  knowledge  had  been  the  object  of  their  re- 
gard through  life,  so  these  great  men  made  it  the  subject  of  their 
testamentary  bounty.  Mr.  Jefferson  is  understood  to  have  bequeath- 
ed his  library  to  the  university,  and  that  of  Mr.  Adams  is  bestowed 
on  the  inhabitants  of  Quincy. 

Mr.  Adams,  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  fellow  citizens,  were  successively 
Presidents  of  the  United  States.  The  comparative  merits  of  their 
respective  administrations  for  a  long  time  agitated  and  divided  pub- 
lic opinion.  They  were  rivals,  each  supported  by  numerous  and 
powerful  portions  of  the  people,  for  the  highest  office.  This  con- 
test, partly  the  cause,  and  partly  the  consequence,  of  the  long  exist- 
ence of  two  great  political  parties  in  the  country,  is  now  part  of  the 
history  of  our  government.  We  may  naturally  regret,  that  any- 
thing should  have  occurred  to  create  difference  and  discord,  between 
those  who  had  acted  harmoniously  and  efficiently  in  the  great  con- 
cerns of  the  revolution.  But  this  is  not  the  time,  nor  this  the  oc- 
casion, for  entering  into  the  grounds  of  that  difference,  or  for  at- 
tempting to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  questions  which  it  involves. 
As  practical  questions,  they  were  canvassed,  when  the  measures 
which  they  regarded  were  acted  on  and  adopted;  and  as  belonging 
to  history,  the  time  has  not  come  for  their  consideration. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  wonderful,  that  when  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  went  first  into  operation,  different  opinions  should  be 
entertained,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  conferred  by  it.  Here 
was  a  natural  source  of  diversity  of  sentiment.  It  is  still  less  won- 
derful, that  that  event,  about  contemporary  with  our  government, 
under  the  present  Constitution,  which  so  entirely  shocked  all  Europe, 
and  disturbed  our  relations  with  her  leading  powers,  should  be  thought, 
by  different  men,  to  have  different  bearings  on  our  own  prosperity; 
and  that  the  early  measures,  adopted  by  our  government,  in  conse- 
quence of  this  new  state  of  things,  should  be  seen  in  opposite  lights. 
It  is  for  the  future  historian,  when  what  now  remains  of  prejudice 
and  misconception  shall  have  passed  away,  to  state  these  different 
opinions,  artd  pronounce  impartial  judgment.  In  the  meantime,  all 
good  men  rejoice,  and  well  may  rejoice,  that  the  sharpest  differences 
sprung  out  of  measures,  which,  whether  right  or  wrong,  have  ceased, 
with  the  exigencies  that  gave  them  birth,  and  have  left  no  permanent 
effect,  either  on  the  Constitution,  or  on  the  general  prosperity  of  the 
country.  This  remark,  I  arn  aware,  may  be  supposed  to  have  its 
exception,  in  one  measure,  the  alteration  of  the  Constitution,  as  to 
the  mode  of  choosing  President;  but  it  is  true,  in  its  general  appli- 
cation. Thus  the  course  of  policy  pursued  towards  France,  in 
1798,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  measures  of  commercial  restriction, 
commenced  in  1807,  on  the  other,  both  subjects  of  warm  and  severe 
opposition,  have  passed  away,  and  left  nothing  behind  them  They 
were  temporary,  and  whether  wise  or  unwise,  their  consequences 
were  limited  to  their  respective  occasions.  It  is  equally  clear,  at 
the  same  time,  and  it  is  equally  gratifying,  that  those  measures  of 


94 

both  administrations,  which  were  of  durable  importance,  and  which 
drew  after  them  interesting  and  long  remaining  consequences,  have 
received  general  approbation.  Such  was  the  organization,  or  rather 
the  creation,  of  the  navy,  in  the  administration  of  Mr.  Adams;  such 
the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  in  that  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  The  coun- 
try, it  may  safely  be  added,  is  not  likely  to  be  willing  either  to  ap- 
prove, or  to  reprobate,  indiscriminately,  and  in  the  aggregate,  all 
the  measures  of  either,  or  of  any,  administration.  The  dictate  of 
reason  and  of  justice  is,  that,  holding  each  one  his  own  sentiments 
on  the  points  in  difference,  we  imitate  the  great  men  themselves,  in 
the  forbearance  and  moderation  which  they  have  cherished,  and  in 
the  mutual  respect  and  kindness  which  they  have  been  so  much  in- 
clined to  feel  and  to  reciprocate. 

No  men,  fellow  citizens,  ever  served  their  country  with  more 
entire  exemption  from  every  imputation  of  selfish  and  mercenary 
motives  than  those  to  whose  memory  we  are  paying  these  proofs  of 
respect.  A  suspicion  of  any  disposition  to  enrich  themselves,  or  to 
profit  by  their  public  employments,  never  rested  on  either.  No 
sordid  motive  approached  them.  The  inheritance  which  they  have 
left  to  their  children,  is  of  their  character  and  their  fame. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  will  detain  you  no  longer  by  this  faint  and  fee- 
ble tribute  to  the  memory  of  the  illustrious  dead.  Even  in  other 
hands,  adequate  justice  could  not  be  performed,  within  the  limits  of 
this  occasion.  Their  highest,  their  best  praise,  is  your  deep  con- 
viction of  their  merits,  your  affectionate  gratitude  for  their  labors 
and  services.  It  is  not  my  voice,  it  is  this  cessation  of  ordinary 
pursuits,  this  arresting  of  all  attention,  these  solemn  ceremonies, 
and  this  crowded  house,  which  speak  their  eulogy.  Their  fame, 
indeed,  is  safe.  That  is  now  treasured  up,  beyond  the  reach  of  ac- 
cident. Although  no  sculptured  marble  should  rise  to  their  mem- 
ory, nor  engraved  stone  bear  record  of  their  deeds,  yet  will  their 
remembrance  be  as  lasting  as  the  land  they  honored.  Marble  col- 
umns may,  indeed,  moulder  into  dust,  time  may  erase  all  impress 
from  the  crumbling  stone,  but  their  fame  remains;  for  with  Ameri- 
can liberty  it  rose,  and  with  American  liberty  only  can  it  perish. 
It  was  the  last  swelling  peal  of  yonder  choir,  "  their  bodies  are 
buried  in  peace,  but  their  name  liveth  evermore."  I  catch 
that  solemn  song,  I  echo  that  lofty  strain  of  funeral  triumph,  "their 

NAME  LIVETH  EVERMORE." 

Of  the  illustrious  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
there  now  remains  only  Charles  Carroll.  He  seems  an  aged 
oak,  standing  alone  on  the  plain,  which  time  has  spared  a  little 
longer,  after  all  its  contemporaries  have  been  levelled  with  the 
dust.  Venerable  object!  we  delight  to  gather  round  its  trunk,  while 
yet  it  stands,  and  to  dwell  beneath  its  shadow.  Sole  survivor  of  an 
assembly  of  as  great  men  as  the  world  has  witnessed,  in  a  transac- 
tion, one  of  the  most  important  that  history  records,  what  thoughts, 
what  interesting  reflections  must  fill  his  elevated  and  devout  soul! 
If  he  dwell  on  the  past,  how  touching  its  recollections;  if  he  survey 
the  present,  how  happy,  how  joyous,  how  full  of  the  fruition  of  that 
hope,  which  his  ardent  patriotism  indulged;  if  he  glance  at  the  fu- 


95 

ture,  how  does  the  prospect  of  his  country's  advancement  almost 
bewilder  his  weakened  conception!  Fortunate,  distinguished  pa- 
triot! Interesting  relic  of  the  past!  Let  him  know  that  while  we 
honor  the  dead,  we  do  not  forget  the  living;  and  that  there  is  not  a 
heart  here  which  does  not  fervently  pray,  that  Heaven  may  keep 
him  yet  back  from  the  society  of  his  companions. 
//  And  now,  fellow  citizens,  let  us  not  retire  from  this  occasion, 
without  a  deep  and  solemn  conviction  of  the  duties  which  have  de- 
volved upon  us.  This  lovely  land,  this  glorious  liberty,  these  benign 
institutions,  the  dear  purchase  of  our  fathers,  are  ours;  ours  to 
enjoy,  ours  to  preserve,  ours  to  transmit.  Generations  past,  and 
generations  to  come,  hold  us  responsible  for  this  sacred  trust.  Our 
fathers,  from  behind,  admonish  us,  with  their  anxious  paternal 
voices,  posterity  calls  out  to  us,  from  the  bosom  of  the  future,  the 
world  turns  hither  its  solicitous  eyes — all,  all  conjure  us  to  act 
wisely,  and  faithfully,  in  the  relation  which  we  sustain.  We  can 
never,  indeed,  pay  the  debt  which  is  upon  us;  but  by  virtue,  by  mo- 
rality, by  religion,  by  the  cultivation  of  every  good  principle  and 
every  good  habit,  we  may  hope  to  enjoy  the  blessing,  through  our 
day,  and  to  leave  it  unimpaired  to  our  children.  Let  us  feel  deeply 
how  much,  of  what  we  are  and  of  what  we  possess,  we  owe  to  this 
liberty,  and  these  institutions  of  government.  Nature  has,  indeed, 
given  us  a  soil,  which  yields  bounteously  to  the  hands  of  industry, 
the  mighty  and  fruitful  ocean  is  before  us,  and  the  skies  over  our 
heads  shed  health  and  vigor.  But  what  are  lands,  and  seas,  and 
skies,  to  civilized  man,  without  society,  without  knowledge,  without 
morals,  without  religious  culture;  and  how  can  these  be  enjoyed,  in 
all  their  extent,  and  all  their  excellence,  but  under  the  protection 
of  wise  institutions  and  a  free  government  ?  Fellow  citizens,  there 
is  not  one  of  us,  there  is  not  one  of  us  here  present,  who  does  not, 
at  this  moment,  and  at  every  moment,  experience,  in  his  own  con 
dition,  and  in  the  condition  of  those  most  near  and  dear  to  him,  the 
influence  and  the  benefits  of  this  liberty,  and  these  institutions. 
Let  us  then  acknowledge  the  blessing,  let  us  feel  it  deeply  and  pow- 
erfully, let  us  cherish  a  strong  affection  for  it,  and  resolve  to  main- 
tain and  perpetuate  it.  The  blood  of  our  fathers,  let  it  not  have 
been  shed  in  vain;  the  great  hope  of  posterity,  let  it  not  be  blasted. 
The  striking  attitude,  too,  in  which  we  stand  to  the  world  around 
us,  a  topic  to  which,  I  fear,  I  advert  too  often,  and  dwell  on  too 
long,  cannot  be  altogether  omitted  here.  Neither  individuals  nor 
nations  can  perform  their  part  well,  until  they  understand  and  feel 
its  importance,  and  comprehend  and  justly  appreciate  all  the  duties 
belonging  to  it.  It  is  not  to  inflate  national  vanity,  nor  to  swell  a 
light  and  empty  feeling  of  self-importance,  but  it  is  that  we  may 
judge  justly  of  our  situation,  and  of  our  own  duties,  that  I  earnest- 
ly urge  this  consideration  of  our  position,  and  our  character,  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  It  cannot  be  denied,  but  by  those  who 
would  dispute  against  the  sun,  that  with  America,  and  in  America, 
a  new  era  commences  in  human  affairs.  This  era  is  distinguished 
by  Free  Representative  Governments,  by  entire  religious  liberty, 
by  improved  systems  of  national  intercourse,  by  a  newly  awakened, 


96 

and  an  unconquerable  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  and  by  a  diffusion  of 
knowledge  through  the  community,  such  as  has  been  before  alto- 
gether unknown  and  unheard  of.  America,  America,  our  country, 
fellow  citizens,  our  own  dear  and  native  land,  is  inseparably  connect- 
ed, fast  bound  up,  in  fortune  and  by  fate,  with  these  great  interests. 
If  they  fall,  we  fall  with  them;  if  they  stand,  it  will  be  because  we 
have  upholden  them.  Let  us  contemplate,  then,  this  connexion, 
which  binds  the  prosperity  of  others  to  our  own;  and  let  us  manfully 
discharge  all  the  duties  which  it  imposes.  If  we  cherish  the  virtues 
and  the  principles  of  our  fathers,  Heaven  will  assist  us  to  carry  on 
the  work  of  human  liberty  and  human  happiness.  Auspicious 
omens  cheer  us.  Great  examples  are  before  us.  Our  own  firma- 
ment now  shines  brightly  upon  our  path.  Washington  is  in  the 
clear  upper  sky.  These  other  stars  have  now  joined  the  American 
constellation;  they  circle  round  their  centre,  and  the  heavens  beam 
with  new  light.  Beneath  this  illumination,  let  us  walk  the  course 
of  life,  and  at  its  close  devoutly  commend  our  beloved  country,  the 
common  parent  of  us  all,  to  the  Divine  Benignity. 


SPEECH 


DELIVERED  AT  A  MEETING  OF  CITIZENS  OF  BOSTON,  HELD  IN  FAN- 
EUIL  HALL,  ON  THE  EVENING  OF  APRIL  3d,  1825,  PREPARATORY  TO 
THE  GENERAL  ELECTION  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


Mr. Webster  said,  he  was  quite  unaccustomed  to  appear  in  that 
place;  having,  on  no  occasion,  addressed  his  fellow  citizens  there, 
either  to  recommend  or  to  oppose  the  support  of  any  candidates  for 
public  office.  He  had  long  been  of  opinion,  that  to  preserve  the 
distinction,  and  the  hostility,  of  political  parties,  was  not  consistent 
with  the  highest  degree  of  public  good.  At  the  same  time  he  did 
not  find  fault  with  the  conduct,  nor  question  the  motives,  of  those 
who  thought  otherwise.  But,  entertaining  this  opinion,  he  had  ab- 
stained from  attending  on  those  occasions,  in  which  the  merits  of 
public  men,  and  of  candidates  for  office,  were  discussed,  necessarily, 
with  more  or  less  reference  to  party  attachment,  and  party  organi- 
zation. 

The  present  was  a  difFerent  occasion.  The  sentiment  which  had 
called  this  meeting  together,  was  a  sentiment  of  union  and  concilia- 
tion; a  sentiment  so  congenial  to  his  own  feelings,  and  to  his  opinion 
of  the  public  interest,  that  he  could  not  resist  the  inclination  to  be 
present,  and  to  express  his  entire  and  hearty  approbation. 

He  should  forbear,  Mr.  W.  said,  from  all  remarks  upon  the  par- 
ticular names  which  had  been  recommended  by  the  committee. 
They  had  been  selected,  he  must  presume,  fairly,  and  with  due 
consideration,  by  those  who  were  appointed  for  that  purpose.  In 
cases  of  this  sort  every  one  cannot  expect  to  find  everything  pre- 
cisely as  he  might  wish  it;  but  those  who  concurred  in  the  general 
sentiment  would  naturally  allow  that  sentiment  to  prevail,  as  far  as 
possible,  over  particular  objections.    . 

On  the  general  question  he  would  make  a  few  remarks,  begging 
the  indulgence  of  the  meeting,  if  he  should  say  anything  which 
might  with  more  propriety,  proceed  from  others. 

He  hardly  conceived  how  well  disposed  and  intelligent  minds 
could  differ,  as  to  the  question,  whether  party  contest,  and  party 
strife,  organized,  systematic,  and  continued,  were  of  themselves 
desirable  ingredients  in  the  composition  of  society. — Difference  of 
opinion,  on  political  subjects,  honorable  competition,  and  emulous 
13  I 


98 

rivalry,  may,  indeed,  be  useful.  But  these  are  very  different  things 
from  organized  and  systematic  party  combinations.  He  admitted, 
even,  that  party  associations  were  sometimes  unavoidable,  and  per- 
haps necessary,  to  the  accomplishment  of  other  ends  and  purposes. 
— But  this  did  not  prove  that,  of  themselves,  they  were  good;  or 
that  they  should  be  continued  and  preserved  for  their  own  sake, 
when  there  had  ceased  to  be  any  object  to  be  effected  by  them. 

But  there  were  those  who  supposed,  that  whether  political  party 
distinctions  were,  or  were  not,  useful,  it  was  impossible  to  abolish 
them.  Now  he  thought,  on  the  contrary,  that  under  present  cir- 
cumstances, it  was  quite  impossible  to  continue  them.  New  parties, 
indeed,  might  arise,  growing  out  of  new  events,  or  new  questions; 
but  as  to  those  old  parties,  which  had  sprung  from  controversies 
now  no  longer  pending,  or  from  feelings  which  time  and  other  causes 
had  now  changed,  or  greatly  allayed,  he  did  not  believe  that  they 
could  long  remain.  Efforts,  indeed,  made  to  that  end,  with  zeal  and 
perseverance,  might  delay  their  extinction,  but,  he  thought,  could 
not  prevent  it.  There  was  nothing  to  keep  alive  these  distinctions, 
in  the  interests  and  objects  which  now  engage  society.  New  ques- 
tions and  new  objects  arise,  having  no  connexion  with  the  subjects 
of  past  controversies,  and  present  interest  overcomes  or  absorbs  the 
recollection  of  former  controversies.  All  that  are  united  on  these 
existing  questions,  and  present  interests,  are  not  likely  to  weaken 
their  efforts  to  promote  them  by  angry  reflections  on  past  differen- 
ces. If  there  were  nothing,  in  things,  to  divide  about,  he  thought 
the  people  not  likely  to  maintain  systematic  controversies  about 
men.  They  have  no  interest  in  so  doing.  Associations  formed  to 
support  principles,  may  be  called  parties;  but  if  they  have  no  bond 
of  union  but  adherence  to  particular  men  they  become  factions. 

The  people,  in  his  opinion,  were  at  present  grateful  to  all  parties, 
for  whatever  of  good  they  had  accomplished,  and  indulgent  to  all 
for  whatever  of  error  they  had  committed;  and,  with  these  feelings, 
were  now  mainly  intent  on  the  great  objects  which  affected  their 
present  interests.  There  might  be  exceptions  to  this  remark;  he 
was  afraid  there  were;  but  nevertheless,  such  appeared  to  him  to  be 
the  general  feeling  in  the  country.  It  was  natural  that  some  preju- 
dices should  remain  longer  than  their  causes,  as  the  waves  lash  the 
shore,  for  a  time,  after  the  storm  has  subsided;  but  the  tendency  of 
the  elements  was  to  repose. — Monopolies  of  all  sorts  were  getting 
out  of  fashion,  they  were  yielding  to  liberal  ideas,  and  to  the  obvi- 
ous justice  and  expediency  of  fair  competition. 

An  administration  of  the  general  government,  which  had  been, 
in  general,  highly  satisfactory  to  the  country,  had  now  closed.  He 
was  not  aware  that  it  could  with  propriety  be  said  that  that  adminis- 
tration had  been  either  supported,  or  opposed  by  any  party  associa- 
tions, or  on  any  party  principles.  Certain  it  was,  that  as  fafas  there 
had  been  any  organized  opposition  to  the  administration,  it  had  had 
nothing  to  do  with  former  parties.  A  new  administration  had  now 
commenced,  and  he  need  hardly  say  that  the  most  liberal  and  con- 
ciliatory principles  had  been  avowed.  It  could  not  be  doubted,  that 
it  would  conform  to  those  principles.  Thus  far,  he  believed,  its 
course  had  given  general  satisfaction.     After  what  they  all  had  seen, 


99 

in  relation  to  the  gentlemen  holding  the  highest  pppointrnent  in  the 
Executive  Department,  under  the  President,  he  would  take  this 
opportunity  to  say,  that  having  been  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  for  six  years,  during  the  far  greater  part  of  which 
time  Mr.  Clay  had  presided  in  that  House,  he  was  most  happy  in 
being  able,  in  a  manner  less  formal  than  by  concurring  in  the  usual 
vote  of  thanks,  to  express  his  own  opinion  of  his  liberality,  inde- 
pendence, and  honorable  feeling.  And  he  would  take  this  occa- 
sion also  to  add,  if  his  opinion  could  be  of  any  value  in  such  a 
case,  that  he  thought  nothing  more  unfounded  than  that  that  gentle- 
man owed  his  present  situation  to  any  unworthy  compromise  or 
arrangement  whatever.  He  owed  it  to  his  talent,  to  his  prominent 
standing  in  the  community,  to  his  course  of  public  service,  not  now 
a  short  one,  and  to  the  high  estimation  in  which  he  stands  with  that 
part  of  the  country  to  which  he  belongs. 

Remarks,  Mr.  Webster  proceeded  to  say,  had  been  made  from 
the  Chair,  very  kind  and  partial,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
discharged  the  duties  which  he  owed  to  his  constituents,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  He  wished  to  say,  that  if  he  had  been 
able  to  render  any,  the  humblest  services,  either  to  the  public  or  his 
constituents,  in  that  place,  it  was  owing  wholly  to  the  liberal  manner 
in  which  his  elforts  there  had  been  received. 

Having  alluded  to  the  Inaugural  Address,  he  did  not  mean  in  the 
slightest  degree  to  detract  from  its  merits,  when  he  now  said,  that 
in  his  opinion,  if  either  of  the  other  candidates  had  succeeded  in  the 
election,  he  also  would  have  adopted  a  liberal  course  of  policy.  He 
had  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  sentiments  of  either  of  those  gen- 
tlemen were,  in  this  respect,  narrow  or  contracted.  He  fully  be- 
lieved the  contrary,  in  regard  to  both  of  them;  but  if  they  had  been 
otherwise,  he  thought  still,  that  expediency  or  necessity,  would  have 
controlled  their  inclinations. 

I  forbear,  said  Mr.  W.,  from  pursuing  these  remarks  farther.  I 
repeat,  that  I  do  not  complain  of  those  who  have  hitherto  thought, 
or  who  still  think,  that  party  organization  is  necessary  to  the  public 
good.  I  do  not  question  their  motives;  and  I  wish  to  be  tolerant 
even  to  those  who  think  that  toleration  ought  not  to  be  indulged. 

It  is  said,  sir,  that  prosperity  sometimes  hardens  the  heart.  Per- 
haps, also,  it  may  sometimes  have  a  contrary  effect,  and  elevate  and 
liberalize  the  feelings.  If  this  can  ever  be  the  result  of  such  a 
cause,  there  is  certainly  in  the  present  condition  of  the  country 
enough  to  inspire  the  most  grateful  and  the  kindest  feelings.  We 
have  a  common  stock  both  of  happiness  and  of  distinction,  of  which 
we  are  all  entitled  as  citizens  of  the  country  to  partake.  We  may 
all  rejoice  in  the  general  prosperity,  in  the  peace  and  security  which 
we  enjoy,  and  in  the  brilliant  success  which  has  thus  far  attended 
our  republican  institutions.  These  are  circumstances  which  may 
well  excite  in  us  all  a  noble  pride.  Our  civil  and  political  institu- 
tions, while  they  answer  for  us  all  the  great  ends  designed  by  them, 
furnish  at  the  same  time  an  example  to  others,  and  diffuse  blessings 
beyond  our  own  limits. — In  whatever  part  of  the  globe  men  are 
found  contending  for  political  liberty,  they  look  to  the  United  States 


100 

with  a  feeling  of  brotherhood,  and  put  forth  a  claim  of  kindred. 
The  South  American  States,  especially,  exhibit  a  most  interesting 
spectacle.  Let  the  great  men  who  formed  our  constitutions  of  gov- 
ernment, who  still  survive,  and  let  the  children  of  those  who  have 
gone  to  their  graves  console  themselves  with  the  reflection,  that 
whether  they  have  risen  or  fallen  in  the  little  contests  of  party,  they 
have  not  only  established  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  their  own 
native  land,  but  have  conferred  blessings  beyond  their  own  country, 
and  beyond  their  own  thoughts,  on  millions  of  men,  and  on  succes- 
sions of  generations.  Under  the  influence  of  these  institutions, 
received  and  adopted  in  principle,  from  our  example,  the  whole 
southern  continent  has  shaken  off  its  colonial  subjection. — A  new 
world,  filled  with  fresh  and  interesting  nations,  has  risen  to  our 
sight.  America  seems  again  discovered;  not  to  geography,  but  to 
commerce,  to  social  intercourse,  to  intelligence,  to  civilisation,  and 
to  liberty.  Fifty  years  ago,  some  of  those  who  now  hear  me,  and 
the  fathers  of  many  others;  listened  in  this  place,  to  those  mighty 
masters,  Otis  and  Adams.  When  they  then  uttered  the  spirit  stir- 
ring sounds  of  Independence  and  Liberty,  there  was  not  a  foot  of 
land  on  the  continent  inhabited  by  civilized  man,  that  did  not  ac- 
knowledge the  dominion  of  European  power.  Thank  God,  at  this 
moment,  from  us  to  the  south  pole,  and  from  sea  to  sea,  there  is 
hardly  a  foot  that  does. 

And,  sir,  when  these  States,  thus  newly  disenthralled  and  eman- 
cipated, assume  the  tone,  and  bear  the  port  of  independence,  what 
language,  and  what  ideas  do  we  find  associated,  with  their  new 
acquired  liberty?  They  speak,  sir,  of  Constitutions,  of  Declara- 
tions of  Rights,  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  of  a  Congress,  and 
of  Representative  Government.  Where,  sir,  did  they  learn  these? 
And  when  they  have  applied,  to  their  great  leader,  and  the  founder 
of  their  States,  the  language  of  praise  and  commendation,  till  they 
have  exhausted  it — when  unsatisfied  gratitude  can  express  itself  no 
otherwise,  do  they  not  call  him  their  Washington?  Sir,  the  Spirit 
of  Continental  Independence,  the  Genius  of  American  Liberty, 
which  in  earlier  times  tried  her  infant  voice  in  the  halls  and  on  the 
hills  of  JVew  England,  utters  it  now,  with  power  that  seems  to  wake 
the  dead,  on  the  plains  of  Mexico,  and  along  the  sides  of  the  Andes. 

"  Her  path,  where'er  the  Goddess  roves, 
Glory  pursues,  and  generous  shame, 
The  unconquerable  mind,  and  Freedom's  holy  flame." 

There  is  one  other  point  of  view,  sir,  in  regard  to  which  I  will 
say  a  few  words,  though  perhaps  at  some  hazard  of  misinterpreta- 
tion. 

In  the  wonderful  spirit  of  improvement  and  enterprise  which  ani- 
mates the  country,  we  may  be  assured  that  each  quarter  will  natu- 
rally exert  its  power  in  favor  of  objects  in  which  it  is  interested. 
This  is  natural  and  unavoidable.  Each  portion,  therefore,  will  use 
its  best  means.  If  the  West  feels  a  strong  interest  in  clearing  the 
navigation  of  its  mighty  streams,  and  opening  roads  through  its  vast 
forests;  if  the  South  is  equally  zealous  to  push  the  production  and 


101 

augment  the  prices  of  its  great  staples,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect, 
that  these  objects  will  be  pursued  by  the  best  means  which  offer. 
And  it  may  therefore  well  deserve  consideration,  whether  the  com- 
mercial, and  navigating,  and  manufacturing  interests  of  the  North 
do  not  call  on  us  to  aid  and  support  them,  by  united  counsels,  and 
united  efforts.  But  I  abstain  from  enlarging  on  this  topic.  Let 
me  rather  say,  sir,  that  in  regard  to  the  whole  country,  a  new  era 
has  arisen.  In  a  time  of  peace,  the  proper  pursuits  of  peace  en- 
gage society  with  a  degree  of  enterprise,  and  an  intenseness  of  ap- 
plication, heretofore  unknown.  New  objects  are  opening,  and  new 
resources  developed,  on  every  side.  We  tread  on  a  broader  theatre; 
and  if  instead  of  acting  our  parts,  according  to  the  novelty  and  im- 
portance of  the  scene,  we  waste  our  strength  in  mutual  crimination 
and  recrimination  about  the  past,  we  shall  resemble  those  navigators, 
who  having  escaped  from  some  crooked  and  narrow  river  to  the  sea, 
now  that  the  whole  ocean  is  before  them,  should,  nevertheless,  oc- 
cupy themselves  with  the  differences  which  happened  as  they  passed 
along  among  the  rocks  and  the  shallows,  instead  of  opening  their 
eyes  to  the  wide  horizon  around  them,  spreading  their  sail  to  the 
propitious  gale  that  woos  it,  raising  their  quadrant  to  the  sun,  and 
grasping  the  helm,  with  the  conscious  hand  of  a  master 


SPEECH 

IN  FANEUIL  HALL,  ON  THURSDAY,  JUNE  5th,  1828. 


At  a  public  dinner  given  him,  by  the  citizens  of  Boston,  as  a  mark  of  respect  for  his  public 
services  as  Senator  of  the  United  States,  and  late  their  Representative  in  Congress, — after 
the  annunciation  of  the  following  toast : — "  Our  distinguished  Guest — worthy  the  noblest 
homage,  which  freemen  can  give,  or  a  freeman  receive:  the  homage  of  their  hearts:" 
Mr.  Webster  rose  and  said  : — 

Mr.  Chairman, — The  honor  conferred  by  this  occasion,  as  well 
as  the  manner  in  which  the  meeting  has  been  pleased  to  receive  what 
has  now  been  proposed  to  them  from  the  Chair,  requires  from  me  a 
most  respectful  acknowledgement,  and  a  few  words  of  honest  and 
sincere  thanks.  I  should,  indeed,  be  lost  to  all  just  feeling,  or  guil- 
ty of  a  weak  and  peurile  affectation,  if  I  should  fail  to  manifest  the 
emotions  which  are  excited  by  these  testimonials  of  regard,  from 
those  among  whom  I  live,  who  see  me  oflenest,  and  know  me  best. 
If  the  approbation  of  good  men  be  an  object  fit  to  be  pursued,  it  is 
fit  to  be  enjoyed;  if  it  be,  as  it  doubtless  is,  one  of  the  most  stirring 
and  invigorating  motives,  which  operate  upon  the  mind,  it  is,  also, 
among  the  richest  rewards  which  console  and  gratify  the  heart. 

I  confess  myself  particularly  touched  and  affected,  Mr.  President, 
and  gentlemen,  by  the  kind  feeling  which  you  manifest  towards  me, 
as  your  fellow  citizen,  your  neighbour,  and  your  friend.  Respect  and 
confidence,  in  these  relations  of  life,  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  valu- 
able character;  they  are  as  essential  to  solid  and  permanent  reputa- 
tion, as  to  durable  and  social  happiness.  I  assure  you,  sir,  with  the 
utmost  sincerity,  that  there  is  nothing  which  could  flow  from  human 
approbation  or  applause,  no  distinction,  however  high  or  alluring,  no 
object  of  ambition,  which  could  possibly  be  brought  within  the  hori- 
zon of  my  view,  that  would  tempt  me,  in  any  degree,  justly  to  forfeit 
the  attachment  of  my  private  friends,  or  surrender  my  hold,  as  a  citi- 
zen, and  a  neighbour,  on  the  confidence  of  the  community  in  which 
I  live;  a  community,  to  which  I  owe  so  much,  in  the  bosom  of  which 
I  have  enjoyed  so  much,  and  where  I  still  hope  to  remain,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  mutual  good  offices,  and  the  interchange  of  mutual  good 
wishes,  for  the  residue  of  life. 

The  commendation  which  the  meeting  has  bestowed  on  my  at- 
tempts at  public  service,  I  am  conscious,  is  measured  rather  by  their 
own  kindness,  than  by  any  other  standard.  Of  those  attempts,  no 
one  can  think  more  humbly  than  I  do.     The  affairs  of  the  general 


103 

government,  foreign  and  domestic,  are  vast,  and  various,  and  com- 
plicated. They  require  from  those  who  would  aspire  to  take  a  lead- 
ing part  in  them  an  amount,  a  variety,  and  an  accuracy  of  informa- 
tion, which  even  if  the  adequate  capacity  were  not  wanting,  are  not 
easily  attained,  by  one  whose  attention  is  necessarily  mainly  devoted 
to  the  duties  of  an  active  and  laborious  profession.  For  this  as  well 
as  many  other  reasons,  I  am  conscious  of  having  discharged  my 
public  duties,  in  a  manner  no  way  entitling  them  to  the  degree  of 
favor  which  has  now  been  manifested. 

And  this  manifestation  of  favor  and  regard  is  the  more  especially 
to  be  referred  to  the  candor  and  kindness  of  the  meeting,  on  this  oc- 
casion, since  it  is  well  known,  that  in  a  recent  instance,  and  in  re- 
gard to  an  important  measure,  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  give  a  vote, 
in  respect  to  the  expediency  and  propriety  of  which  considerable  dif- 
ference of  opinion  exists,  between  persons  equally  entitled  to  my 
regard  and  confidence. — The  candid  interpretation  which  has  been 
given  to  that  vote,  by  those  who  disapproved  it,  and  the  assembling 
together  here,  for  the  purpose  of  this  occasion, of  those  who  felt  pain, 
as  well  as  those  who  felt  pleasure,  at  the  success  of  the  measure  for 
which  the  vote  was  given,  afford  ample  proof,  how  far  unsuspected 
uprightness  of  intention,  and  the  exercise  of  an  independent  judg- 
ment may  be  respected,  even  by  those  who  differ  from  the  results  to 
which  that  exercise  of  judgment  has  arrived.  There  is  no  class  of 
the  community  for  whose  interests  I  have  ever  cherished  a  more  sin- 
cere regard,  than  that  on  whose  pursuits  some  parts  of  the  measure 
alluded  to  bears  with  great  severity.  They  are  satisfied,  I  hope,  that 
In  supporting  a  measure  in  any  degree  injurious  to  them,  I  must  have 
been  governed  by  other  paramount  reasons,  satisfactory  to  my  own 
conscience;  and  that  the  blow,  inflicted  on  their  interests,  was  felt 
by  me  almost  as  painfully  and  heavily,  as  it  could  be  by  those  on 
whom  it  immediately  fell.  I  am  not  now  about  to  enter  into  the 
reason  of  that  vote,  or  to  explain  the  necessity  under  which  I  found 
myself  placed  by  a  most  strange  and  unprecedented  manner  of  legis- 
lation, of  taking  the  evil  of  a  public  measure  for  the  sake  of  its  good; 
the  good  and  the  bad  provisions  relating  to  different  subjects,  having 
not  the  slightest  connexion  with  each  other,  yet  yoked  together,  and 
kept  together,  for  reasons  and  purposes  which  I  need  not  state^,  as 
they  have  been  boldly  avowed,  and  are  now  before  the  public. 

It  was  my  misfortune,  sir,  on  that  occasion  to  differ  from  my  most 
estimable  and  worthy  colleague.  And  yet  probably  our  difference 
was  not  so  broad  as  it  might  seem.  We  both  saw,  in  the  measure, 
something  to  approve,  and  something  to  disapprove.  If  it  could  have 
been  left  to  us  to  mould  and  to  frame  it  according  to  our  opinions  of 
what  the  good  of  the  country  required,  there  would  have  been  no 
diversity  of  judgment  between  us,  as  to  what  should  have  been  re- 
tained and  what  rejected.  The  only  difference  was,  when  the  mea- 
sure had  assumed  its  final  shape,  whether  the  good  it  contained  so 
far  preponderated  over  its  acknowledged  evil,  as  to  justify  the  recep- 
tion and  support  of  the  whole  together.  On  a  point  of  this  sort,  and 
under  circumstances  such  as  those  in  which  we  were  placed,  it  is  not 
strange  that  different  minds  should  incline  different  ways.  It  gives 
me  great  pleasure  to  bear  testimony  to  the  constancy,  the  intelligence 


104 

and  the  conscious  fidelity  with  which  my  colleague  discharged  his 
public  duty,  in  reference  to  this  subject.  I  am  happy  also  to  have 
the  opportunity  of  saying,  that  if  the  bill  had  been  presented  to  me, 
in  the  form  it  was  when  it  received  a  negative  vote  from  the  distin- 
guished gentleman  who  represents  this  District,  my  own  opinion  of 
it  would  have  entirely  concurred  with  his,  and  I  should  have  voted 
in  the  same  manner. 

The  meeting  will  indulge  me  with  one  further  remark,  before  part- 
ing from  this  subject.  It  is  only  the  suggestion,  that  in  the  place  I 
occupied  I  was  one  of  the  Representatives  of  the  whole  Common- 
wealth. I  was  not  at  liberty  to  look  exclusively  to  the  interests  of 
the  District  in  which  I  live,  and  which  I  have  heretofore  had  the 
high  honor  of  representing.  I  was  to  extend  my  view  from  Barns- 
table to  Berkshire;  to  comprehend  in  it  a  proper  regard  for  all  inter- 
ests, and  a  proper  respect  for  all  opinions.  Looking  to  the  aggre- 
gate of  all  the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  regarding  the 
general  current  of  opinion,  so  far  as  that  was  properly  to  be  respect- 
ed, I  saw — at  least  I  thought  I  saw — my  duty  to  lie  in  the  path  which 
I  pursued.  The  measure  is  adopted.  Its  consequences,  for  good 
or  evil,  must  be  left  to  the  results  of  experience.  In  the  meantime, 
I  refer  the  propriety  of  the  vote  which  I  gave,  with  entire  submission, 
and  with  the  utmost  cheerfulness  also,  to  the  judgment  of  the  good 
people  of  the  Commonwealth. 

On  some  other  subjects,  Mr.  President,  I  had  the  good  fortune  to 
act  in  perfect  unison  with  my  colleague,  and  with  every  Representa- 
tive of  the  State.  On  one,  especially,  the  success  of  which,  I  am 
sure,  must  have  gratified  every  one  who  hears  me.  I  could  not,  sir, 
have  met  this  meeting  here,  I  could  not  have  raised  my  voice  in  Fan- 
euil  Hall — you  would  have  awed  me  down — if  you  had  not,  the  pic- 
tures of  Patriots  which  adorn  these  walls  would  have  frowned  me 
into  silence,  if  I  had  refused  either  my  vote  or  my  voice  to  the  cause 
of  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  revolutionary  army.  That  mea- 
sure, mixed  up  of  justice,  and  charity,  and  mercy,  is  at  last  accom- 
plished. The  survivors,  among  those  who  fought  our  revolutionary 
battles,  under  an  engagement  to  see  the  contest  through,  are  at 
length  provided  for,  not  sumptuously,  not  extravagantly,  but  in  a 
manner  to  place  them,  in  their  old  age,  beyond  the  reach  of  absolute 
want.  Solace,  also,  has  been  administered  to  their  feelings,  as  well 
as  to  their  necessities.  They  are  not  left  to  count  their  scars,  or  to 
experience  the  pain  of  wounds,  inflicted  half  a  century  ago,  in  thei 
country's  service,  without  some  token,  that  they  are  yet  held  in  grate- 
ful remembrance — a  gratifying  proof  of  respect  for  the  services  oi 
their  youth  and  manhood  quickens  the  pulsations  of  patriotism,  in 
veteran  bosoms;  and  as  they  may  now  live,  beyond  the  reach  of  ab- 
solute want,  so  they  will  have  the  pleasure  of  closing  life,  when  that 
time  for  closing  it  shall  come,  which  must  come,  with  the  happy  con- 
sciousness of  meritorious  services,  gratefully  recompensed. 

Another  subject,  now  becoming  exceedingly  interesting,  was,  in 
various  forms,  presented  to  Congress  at  the  last  session;  and  in  re- 
gard to  which,  I  believe,  there  is,  substantially,  a  general  union  of 
opinion  among  the  members  from  this  Commonwealth.  I  mean 
what  is  commonly  called  Internal  Improvements.     The  great  and 


105 

growing  importance  of  this  subject  may,  I  hope,  justify  a  few  re- 
marks, relative  to  it,  on  the  present  occasion. 

It  was  evident  to  all  persons  of  much  observation,  at  the  close  of  the 
late  war,  that  the  condition  and  prospects  of  the  United  States  had  be- 
come essentially  changed,  in  regard  to  sundry  great  interests  of  the 
country.  Almost  from  the  commencement  of  the  government,  down 
near  to  the  commencement  of  that  war,  the  United  States  had  occu- 
pied a  position  of  singular  and  extraordinary  advantage.  They  had 
been  at  peace,  while  the  powers  of  Europe  had  been  at  war.  The 
harvest  of  neutrality  had  been  to  them  rich  and  ample;  and  they  had 
reaped  it  with  skill  and  diligence.  Their  agriculture  and  commerce 
had  both  felt  sensibly,  the  benefit  arising  from  the  existing  state  of 
the  world.  Bread  was  raised  for  those  whose  hands  were  otherwise 
employed  than  in  the  cultivation  of  the  field,  and  the  seas  were  navi- 
gated, for  account  of  such,  as  being  belligerents,  could  not  safely 
navigate  them  for  themselves.  These  opportunities  for  useful  em- 
ployment were  all  seized  and  enjoyed,  by  the  enterprise  of  the  coun- 
try; and  a  high  degree  of  prosperity  was  the  natural  result. 

But  with  general  peace,  a  new  state  of  things  arose.  The  Euro- 
pean states  at  once  turned  their  own  attention  to  the  pursuits, 
proper  for  their  new  situation,  and  sought  to  extend  their  own  agri- 
cultural, manufacturing,  and  commercial  interests.  It  was  evident, 
that  thenceforward,  instead  of  enjoying  the  advantages  peculiar  to 
neutrality,  in  times  of  war,  a  general  competition  would  spring  up, 
and  nothing  was  to  be  expected  without  a  struggle.  Other  nations 
would  now  raise  their  own  bread,  and  as  far  as  possible,  transport 
their  own  commodities;  and  the  export  trade,  and  the  carrying  trade 
of  this  country,  were,  therefore,  certain  to  receive  new  and  powerful 
competition,  if  not  sudden  and  violent  checks.  It  seemed  reason- 
able, therefore,  in  this  state  of  things,  to  turn  our  thoughts  inwards, 
to  explore  the  hitherto  unexplored  resourses  of  our  own  country,  to 
find  out,  if  we  could,  new  diversifications  of  industry,  new  subjects 
for  the  application  of  labor  at  home.  It  was  fit  to  consider  how  far 
home  productions  could,  properly,  be  made  to  furnish  activity  to  home 
supply;  and  since  the  country  stretched  over  so  many  parallels  of 
latitude  and  longitude,  abounding,  of  course,  in  the  natural  produc- 
tions proper  to  each,  it  was  of  the  highest  importance  to  inquire  what 
means  existed  of  establishing  free  and  cheap  intercourse,  between 
those  parts,  thereby  bringing  the  raw  material,  abounding  in  one, 
under  the  action  of  the  productive  labor  which  was  found  in  another. 
Roads  and  Canals,  therefore,  were  seen  to  be  of  the  first  conse- 
quence. And  then  the  interesting  question  arose;  how  far  it  was 
constitutionally  lawful,  and  how  far  expedient,  for  the  general  gov- 
ernment to  give  aid  and  succour  to  the  business  of  making  roads  and 
canals,  in  conjunction  with  individual  enterprise,  or  State  underta- 
kings. I  am  among  those  who  have  held  the  opinion  that  if  any  ob- 
ject of  that  kind  be  of  general  and  national  importance,  it  is  within 
the  scope  of  the  powers  of  the  government;  though  I  admit  it  to  be 
a  power  which  should  be  exercised  with  very  great  care  and  discre- 
tion. Congress  has  power  to  regulate  commerce,  both  internal  and 
external;  and  whatever  might  have  been  thought  to  be  the  literal  in- 
terpretation of  these  terms,  we  know  the  construction  to  have  been, 
14 


106 

from  the  very  first  assembling  of  Congress,  and  by  the  very  men 
who  framed  the  Constitution,  that  the  regulation  of  commerce  com- 
prehended such  measures  as  were  necessary  for  its  support,  its  im- 
provement, its  advancement;  and  justified  such  expenditures  as  Piers, 
Beacons,  and  Lighthouses,  and  the  clearing  out  of  harbours  requir- 
ed. Instances  of  this  sort,  in  the  application  of  the  general  reve- 
nues, have  been  frequent,  from  the  commencement  of  the  govern- 
ment. As  the  same  power,  precisely,  exists  in  relation  to  internal 
as  to  external  trade,  it  was  not  easy  to  see  why  like  expenditures 
might  not  be  justified,  when  made  on  internal  objects.  The  vast  re- 
gions of  the  West  are  penetrated  by  rivers,  to  which  those  of  Europe 
are  but  as  rills  and  brooks. — But  the  navigation  of  these  noble 
streams,  washing,  as  they  do,  the  margin  of  one  third  of  the  States 
of  the  Union,  was  obstructed  by  obstacles,  capable  of  being  removed, 
and  yet  not  likely  to  be  removed,  but  by  the  power  of  the  general 
government.  Was  this  a  justifiable  object  of  expenditure  from  the 
national  treasury  ?  Without  hesitation,  I  have  thought  it  was.  A 
vast  chain  of  lakes,  if  it  be  not  more  proper  to  call  them  a  succession 
of  inland  seas,  stretches  into  the  deep  interior  of  this  northern  part 
of  the  continent,  as  if  kindly  placed  there  by  Providence  to  break 
the  continuity  of  the  land,  and  afford  the  easier  and  readier  inter- 
course of  water  conveyance. — But  these  vast  lakes  required,  also, 
harbours,  and  lights,  and  breakwaters  ?  And  were  these  lawful  ob- 
jects of  national  legislation?  To  me,  certainly,  they  have  appeared 
to  be  such,  as  clearly  as  if  they  were  on  the  Atlantic  border. 

In  most  of  the  new  States  of  the  West,  the  United  States  are  yet 
proprietors  of  vast  bodies  of  land.  Through  some  of  these  States, 
and  sometimes  through  these  same  public  lands,  the  local  authorities 
have  prepared  to  carry  expensive  canals,  for  the  general  benefit  of 
the  country.  Some  of  these  undertakings  have  been  attended  with 
great  expense,  have  subjected  the  States,  where  enterprising  spirit 
has  begun  and  carried  them  on,  to  large  debts,  and  heavy  taxation. 
The  lands  of  the  United  States  being  exempted  from  all  taxation,  of 
course  bear  no  part  of  this  burden.  Looking  to  the  United  States, 
therefore,  as  a  great  landed  proprietor,  essentially  benefited  by  these 
improvements,  I  have  felt  no  difficulty  in  voting  for  the  appropriation 
of  parts  of  these  lands,  as  a  reasonable  contribution  by  the  United 
States  to  these  general  objects. 

Most  of  the  subjects  to  which  I  have  referred,  are  much  less  local, 
in  their  influence,  and  importance,  than  they  might  seem.  The 
breakwater  in  the  Delaware,  useful  to  Philadelphia,  is  useful  also 
to  all  the  ship-owners  in  the  United  States,  and  indeed  to  all  inter- 
ested in  commerce,  especially  that  great  branch,  the  coastwise 
commerce.  If  the  mouths  of  the  southern  rivers  be  deepened  and 
improved,  the  neighbouring  cities  are  benefited,  but  so  also  are  the 
ships  which  visit  them;  and  if  the  Mississippi  and  Ohio  be  rendered 
more  safe  for  navigation,  the  great  markets  of  consumption  along 
their  shores  are  the  more  readily  and  cheaply  approached  by  the 
products  of  the  Factories  and  the  Fisheries  of  New  England. 

It  is  my  opinion,  Mr.  President,  that  the  present  government  can- 
not be  maintained  but  by  administering  it  on  principles  as  wide  and 
broad  as  the  country  over  which  it  extends.     I  mean,  of  course,  no 


107 

extension  of  the  powers  which  it  confers;  but  I  speak  of  the  spirit 
with  which  those  powers  should  be  exercised.  If  there  be  any  doubts, 
whether  so  many  republics,  covering  so  great  a  portion  of  the  globe, 
can  be  long  held  together  under  this  Constitution,  there  is  no  doubt 
in  my  judgment,  of  the  impossibility  of  so  holding  them  together  by 
any  narrow,  contracted,  local,  or  selfish  system  of  legislation.  To 
render  the  Constitution  perpetual,  (which  God  grant  it  may  be)  it  is 
necessary  that  its  benefits  should  be  practically  felt,  by  all  parts  of 
the  country,  and  all  interests  in  the  country.  The  East  and  the 
West,  the  North  and  the  South,  must  all  see  their  own  welfare  pro- 
tected and  advanced  by  it.  While  the  eastern  frontier  is  defended 
by  fortifications,  its  harbours  improved,  and  commerce  defended  by  a 
naval  force,  it  is  right  and  just  that  the  region  beyond  the  Alleghany 
should  receive  fair  consideration  and  equal  attention,  in  any  object 
of  public  improvement,  interesting  to  itself,  and  within  the  proper 
power  of  the  government. — These,  sir,  are,  in  brief,  the  general 
views  by  which  I  have  been  governed,  on  questions  of  this  kind; 
and  I  trust  they  are  such  as  this  meeting  does  not  disapprove. 

I  would  not  trespass  farther  upon  your  attention,  if  I  did  not  feel 
it  my  duty  to  say  a  few  words  on  the  condition  of  public  affairs  under 
another  aspect.  We  are  on  the  eve  of  a  new  election  for  President; 
and  the  manner  in  which  the  existing  administration  is  attacked  might 
lead  a  stranger  to  suppose,  that  the  Chief  Magistrate  had  committed 
some  flagrant  offence  against  the  country,  threatened  to  overturn  its 
liberties,  or  establish  a  military  usurpation.  On  a  former  occasion 
I  have,  in  this  place,  expressed  my  opinion  of  the  principle,  upon 
which  the  opposition  to  the  administration  is  founded;  without  any 
reference  whatever  to  the  person  who  stands  as  its  apparent  head, 
and  who  is  intended  by  it  to  be  placed  in  the  chief  executive  chair. 
I  think  that  principle  exceedingly  dangerous  and  alarming,  inasmuch 
as  it  does  not  profess  to  found  opposition  to  the  government  on  the 
measures  of  government,  but  to  rest  it  on  other  causes,  and  those 
mostly  personal.  There  is  a  combination,  or  association,  of  persons 
holding  the  most  opposite  opinions,  both  on  the  constitutional  pow- 
ers of  the  government,  and  on  the  leading  measures  of  public  con- 
cern, and  uniting  in  little,  or  in  nothing,  except  the  will  to  dislodge 
power  from  the  hands  in  which  the  country  has  placed  it.  There 
has  been  no  leading  measure  of  the  government,  with  perhaps  a  sin- 
gle exception,  which  has  not  been  strenuously  maintained  by  many, 
or  by  some  of  those,  who  co-operate,  altogether,  nevertheless,  in 
pursuit  of  the  object  which  I  have  mentioned.  This  is  but  one  of 
many  proofs  that  the  opposition  does  not  rest  in  the  principle  of  dis- 
approbation of  the  measures  of  government.  Many  other  evidences 
of  the  same  truth,  might  be  adduced  easily.  A  remarkable  one  is, 
that  while  one  ground  of  objection  to  the  administration  is  urged  in 
one  place,  its  precise  opposite  is  pressed  in  another.  Pennsylva- 
nia and  South  Carolina,  for  example,  are  not  treated  with  the  same 
reasons  for  a  change  of  administration;  but  with  flatly  contradictory 
reasons.  In  one,  the  administration  is  represented  as  bent  on  a  par- 
ticular system,  oppressive  to  that  State,  and  which  must  ultimately 
ruin  it;  and  for  that  reason  there  ought  to  be  a  change.  In  the 
other,  that  system,  instead  of  being  ruinous,  is  salutary,  is  necessary, 


108 

is  indispensable.  But  the  administration  is  but  half  in  earnest  in 
supporting  it,  and  for  that  reason  there  ought  to  be  a  change. 

Reflecting  men  have  always  supposed,  that  if  there  were  a  weak 
point  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  it  was  in  the  provision  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  Executive  power.  And  this,  perhaps,  may  be  consid- 
ered as  rendered  more  delicate  and  difficult,  by  the  great  augmenta- 
tion of  the  number  of  the  States.  We  must  expect  that  there  will 
often  be,  as  there  was  on  the  last  election,  several  candidates  for  the 
Presidency.  All  but  one,  of  course,  must  be  disappointed;  and  if 
the  friends  of  all  such,  however  otherwise  divided,  are  immediately 
to  unite,  and  to  make  common  cause  against  him  who  is  elected,  lit- 
tle is  ever  to  be  expected  but  embarrassment  and  confusion. — The 
love  of  office  will,  ere  long,  triumph  over  the  love  of  country;  and 
party  and  faction  usurp  the  place  of  wisdom  and  patriotism.  If  the 
contest  for  the  executive  power  is  thus  to  be  renewed  every  four 
years;  if  it  is  to  be  conducted  as  the  present  has  been  conducted; 
and  if  every  election  is  to  be  immediately  followed,  as  the  last  was 
followed,  by  a  prompt  union  of  all  whose  friends  are  not  chosen, 
against  him  who  is,  there  is,  in  my  judgment,  danger,  great  danger, 
that  this  great  experiment  of  confederated  government  may  fail,  and 
that  even  those  of  us,  who  are  not  among  the  youngest,  may  behold 
its  catastrophe. 

It  cannot  have  escaped  the  notice  of  any  gentleman  present,  that 
in  the  course  of  the  controversy,  pains  have  been  taken  to  affect  the 
character  and  the  success  of  the  present  chief  magistrate,  by  exci- 
ting odium  towards  that  part  of  the  country  in  which  he  was  born 
and  to  which  he  belongs.  Sneers,  contumely,  reproach,  everything 
that  gentlemen  could  say,  and  many  things  which  gentlemen  could 
not  say,  have  been  uttered  against  New  England. — I  am  sure,  sir, 
every  true  son  of  New  England  must  receive  such  things,  when  they 
come  from  sources  which  ought  to  be  considered  respectable,  with  a 
feeling  of  just  indignation;  and  when  proceeding  from  elsewhere, 
with  contempt.  If  there  be  one  among  ourselves,  who  can  be  in- 
duced, by  any  motives,  to  join  in  this  cry  against  New  England,  he 
disgraces  the  New  England  mother  who  bore  him,  the  New  England 
father  who  bred  and  nurtured  him,  and  the  New  England  atmosphere 
which  first  supplied  respiration  to  those  lungs  now  so  unworthily  em- 
ployed in  uttering  calumnies  against  his  country.  Persons,  not 
known  till  yesterday,  and  having  little  chance  of  being  remembered 
beyond  to-morrow,  have  affected  to  draw  a  distinction  between  the 
Patriot  States  and  the  States  of  New  England;  assigning  the  last  to 
the  present  President,  and  the  rest  to  his  rival.  I  do  not  wonder, 
sir,  at  the  indignation  and  scorn  which  I  perceive  the  recital  of  this 
injustice  produces  here.  Nothing  else  was  to  be  expected.  Fan- 
euil  Hall  is  not  a  place  where  one  is  expected  to  hear  with  indiffer- 
ence that  New  England  is  not  to  be  counted  among  the  Patriot  States. 
The  Patriot  States!  What  State  was  it,  sir,  that  was  patriotic  when 
patriotism  cost  something?  Where  but  in  New  England,  did  the 
great  drama  of  the  revolution  open  ?  Where,  but  on  the  soil  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, was  the  first  blood  poured  out,  in  the  cause  of  Liberty 
and  Independence?  Where,  sooner  than  here,  where  earlier  than 
within  the  walls  which  now  surround  us,  was  patriotism  found,  when 


109 

to  be  patriotic  was  to  endanger  houses  and  homes,  and  wives  and 
children,  and  to  be  ready  also,  to  pay  for  the  reputation  of  patriotism, 
by  the  sacrifice  of  blood  and  of  life  ? 

Not  farther  to  refer  to  her  revolutionary  merits,  it  may  be  truly 
said  that  New  England  did  her  part,  and  more  than  her  part,  in  the 
establishment  of  the  present  government,  and  in  giving  effect  to  the 
measures  and  the  policy  of  the  first  President.  Where,  sir,  did  the 
measures  of  Washington  find  the  most  active  friends,  and  the  firmest 
support? — Where  are  the  general  principles  of  his  policy  most  wide- 
ly spread,  and  most  deeply  seated? — If,  in  subsequent  periods,  dif- 
ferent opinions  have  been  held,  by  different  portions  of  her  people, 
New  England  has,  nevertheless,  been  always  obedient  to  the  laws, 
even  when  she  most  severely  felt  their  pressure,  and  most  conscien- 
tiously doubted,  or  disbelieved  their  propriety.  Every  great  and 
permanent  institution  of  the  country,  intended  for  defence,  or  for 
improvement,  has  met  her  support.  And  if  we  look  to  recent  mea- 
sures, on  subjects  highly  interesting  to  the  community,  and  espe- 
cially some  portions  of  it,  we  see  proofs  of  the  same  steady  and 
liberal  policy.  It  may  be  said,  with  entire  truth,  and  it  ought  to  b« 
said,  and  ought  to  be  known,  that  no  one  measure  for  internal  im- 
provement has  been  carried  through  Congress,  or  could  have  been 
carried,  but  by  the  aid  of  New  England  votes.  It  is  for  those  most 
deeply  interested  in  subjects  of  that  sort  to  consider  in  season,  how 
far  the  continuance  of  the  same  aid  is  necessary  for  the  further  pros- 
ecution of  the  same  objects.  From  the  interference  of  the  general 
government  in  making  roads  and  canals,  New  England  has  as  little 
to  hope  or  expect  as  any  part  of  the  country.  She  has  hitherto  sup- 
ported them,  upon  principle,  and  from  a  sincere  disposition  to  extend 
the  blessings  and  the  beneficence  of  the  government.  And,  sir,  I 
confidently  believe  that  those  most  concerned  in  the  success  of  these 
measures,  feel  towards  her  respect  and  friendship.  They  feel  that 
she  has  acted  fairly  and  liberally,  wholly  uninfluenced  by  selfish  or 
sinister  motives.  Those,  therefore,  who  have  seen,  or  thought  they 
saw,  an  object  to  be  attained  by  exciting  dislike  and  odium  towards 
New  England,  are  not  likely  to  find  quite  so  favorable  an  audience  as 
they  have  expected.  It  will  not  go  for  quite  so  much  as  wished,  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  President,  that  he  is  a  native  of  Massachu setts . 
Nothing  is  wanting,  but  that  we,  ourselves,  should  entertain  a  proper 
feeling  on  this  subject,  and  act  with  a  just  regard  to  our  own  rights 
and  our  own  duties.  If  I  could  collect  around  me  the  whole  popu- 
lation of  New  England,  or  if  I  could  cause  my  voice  to  be  heard 
over  all  her  green  hills,  or  along  every  one  of  her  pleasant  streams, 
in  the  exercise  of  true  filial  affection,  I  would  say  to  her,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  great  master  of  the  maxims  of  life  and  conduct. 

14  This  above  all, — To  thine  own  self  be  true 
And  it  must  follow,  as  the  night  the  day, 
Thou  canst  not  then  be  false  to  any  man." 

Mr.  President, — I  have  delayed  you  too  long.  I  beg  to  repeat 
my  thanks  for  the  kindness  which  has  been  manifested  towards  me,  by 
my  fellow  citizens,  and  to  conclude  by  reciprocating  their  good  wishes. 

The  City  of  Boston.  Prosperity  to  all  her  interests,  and  happi- 
ness to  all  her  citizens. 


ARGUMENT 


IN  THE  CASE,  THE  TRUSTEES  OF  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  vs.  WIL- 
LIAM H.  WOODWARD,  BEFORE  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  10th  DAY  OF  MARCH,  1818. 

[The  action,  The  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  College  vs.  William  H.  Woodward,  was  com- 
menced at  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Grafton  County,  State  of  New  Hampshire,  Feb- 
ruary Term,  1817.  The  declaration  was  Trover  for  the  Books  of  Record,  original  Charter, 
common  Seal  and  other  corporate  property  of  the  College.  The  conversion  was  alleged  to 
have  been  made  on  the  7th  day  of  October,  1816.  The  proper  pleas  were  filed,  and  by 
consent,  the  cause  was  carried  directly  to  the  Superior  Court,  by  Appeal,  and  entered  Ma) 
Term  1817.  The  general  issue  was  pleaded  by  the  defendant  and  joined  by  the  plaintiffs. 
The  facts  in  the  case  were  then  agreed  upon,  by  the  parties,  and  drawn  up  in  the  form  of  a 
Special  Verdict,  reciting  the  Charter  of  the  College  and  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  passed  June  and  December  1816,  by  which  the  said  Corporation  of  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege was  enlarged  and  improved  and  the  said  Charter  amended. 

The  question  made  in  the  case  was,  whether  those  acts  of  the  Legislature  were  valid 
and  binding  upon  the  Corporation,  without  their  acceptance  or  assent,  and  not  repugnant 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  If  so,  the  verdict  found  for  the  defendant ;  other- 
wise, it  found  for  the  plaintiffs. 

The  cause  was  continued  to  the  September  Term  of  the  Court  in  Rockingham  County, 
where  it  was  argued ;  and  at  the  November  Term  of  the  same  year,  in  Grafton  County, 
the  opinion  of  the  Court  was  delivered  by  Chief  Justice  Richardson,  in  favor  of  the  validity 
and  constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  the  Legislature ;  and  judgment  was  accordingly  entered 
for  the  defendant  on  the  Special  Verdict. 

Thereupon  a  Writ  of  Error  was  sued  out  by  the  original  plaintiffs  to  remove  tha  cause 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  where  it  was  entered  at  the  Term  of  the  Court 
holden  at  Washington  on  the  first  Monday  of  February,  A.  D.  1818. 

The  cause  came  on  for  argument  on  the  10th  day  of  March  1818,  before  all  the  judges. 
It  was  argued  by  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Hopkinson  for  the  plaintiffs  in  error,  and  by  Mr. 
Holmes  and  the  Attorney  General  for  the  defendant  in  error. 

At  the  Term  of  the  Court  holden  February  1819,  the  opinion  of  the  judges  was  deliver- 
ed, declaring  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  unconstitutional  and  invalid,  and  reversing  the 
judgment  of  the  State  Court.] 

ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  WEBSTER  FOR  PLAINTIFFS  IN  ERROR. 

The  general  question  is,  whether  the  acts  of  the  27th  of  June, 
and  of  the  18th  and  26th  of  December,  1816,  are  valid  and  binding 
on  the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs,  without  their  acceptance  or  assent. 

The  charter  of  1769  created  and  established  a  corporation,  to 
consist  of  twelve  persons,  and  no  more;  to  be  called  the  "  Trustees 
of  Dartmouth  College."  The  preamble  to  the  charter  recites,  that 
it  is  granted  on  the  application  and  request  of  the  Rev.  Eleazer 


Ill 

Wheelock:  That  Dr.  Wheelock,  about  the  year  1754,  established 
a  charity  school,  at  his  own  expense,  and  on  his  own  estate  and 
plantation:  That,  for  several  years,  through  the  assistance  of  well 
disposed  persons  in  America,  granted  at  his  solicitation,  he  had 
clothed,  maintained,  and  educated  a  number  of  the  native  Indians, 
and  employed  them  afterwards  as  missionaries  and  schoolmasters 
among  the  savage  tribes:  That  his  design  promising  to  be  useful, 
he  had  constituted  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whitaker  to  be  his  attorney,  with 
power  to  solicit  contributions,  in  England,  for  the  further  extension 
and  carrying  on  of  his  undertaking;  and  that  he  had  requested  the 
Earl  of  Dartmouth,  Baron  Smith,  Mr.  Thornton,  and  other  gentle- 
men, to  receive  such  sums  as  might  be  contributed,  in  England, 
towards  supporting  his  school,  and  to  be  trustees  thereof,  for  his 
charity;  which  these  persons  had  agreed  to  do.  And  thereupon  Dr. 
Wheelock  had  executed  to  them  a  deed  of  trust,  in  pursuance  to 
such  agreement,  between  him  and  them,  and  for  divers  good  reasons, 
had  referred  it  to  these  persons,  to  determine  the  place  in  which  the 
school  should  be  finally  established:  And  to  enable  them  to  form 
a  proper  decision  on  this  subject,  had  laid  before  them  the  several 
offers  which  had  been  made  to  him  by  the  several  governments  in 
America,  in  order  to  induce  him  to  settle  and  establish  his  school 
within  the  limits  of  such  governments  for  their  own  emolument,  and 
the  increase  of  learning  in  their  respective  places,  as  well  as  for  the 
furtherance  of  his  general  original  design.  And  in  as  much  as  a 
number  of  the  proprietors  of  lands  in  New  Hampshire,  animated  by 
the  example  of  the  governor  himself  and  others,  and  in  considera- 
tion that  without  any  impediment  to  its  original  design,  the  school 
might  be  enlarged  and  improved,  to  promote  learning  among  the 
English,  and  to  supply  ministers  to  the  people  of  that  province,  had 
promised  large  tracts  of  land,  provided  the  school  should  be  estab- 
lished in  that  province,  the  persons  before  mentioned,  having  weighed 
the  reasons  in  favor  of  the  several  places  proposed,  had  given  the 
preference  to  this  province,  and  these  offers;  that  Dr.  Wheelock 
therefore  represented  the  necessity  of  a  legal  incorporatio  .1,  and 
proposed  that  certain  gentlemen  in  America,  whom  he  had  already 
named  and  appointed  in  his  will,  to  be  trustees  of  his  charity  after 
his  decease,  should  compose  the  corporation.  Upon  this  recital, 
and  in  consideration  of  the  laudable  original  design  of  Dr.  Whee- 
lock, and  willing  that  the  best  means  of  education  be  established  in 
New  Hampshire,  for  the  benefit  of  the  province,  the  king  grants 
the  charter,  by  the  advice  of  his  provincial  council. 

The  substance  of  the  facts  thus  recited,  is,  that  Dr.  Wheelock  had 
founded  a  charity,  on  funds  owned  and  procured  by  himself;  that  he 
was  at  that  time  the  sole  dispenser  and  sole  administrator,  as  well 
as  the  legal  owner  of  these  funds;  that  he  had  made  his  will,  devis- 
ing this  property  in  trust,  to  continue  the  existence  and  uses  of  the 
school,  and  appointed  trustees;  that,  in  this  state  of  things,  he  had 
been  invited  to  fix  his  school,  permanently,  in  New  Hampshire,  and 
to  extend  the  design  of  it  to  the  education  of  the  youth  of  that  pro- 
vince; that  before  he  removed  his  school,  or  accepted  this  invitation; 
which  his  friends  in  England  had  advised  him  to  accept,  he  applied 
for  a  charter,  to  be  granted,  not  to  whomsoever  the  king  or  govern- 


112 

ment  of  the  province  should  please,  but  to  such  persons  as  he  named 
and  appointed,  viz.  the  persons  whom  he  had  already  appointed  to 
be  the  future  trustees  of  his  charity  by  his  will. 

The  charter,  or  letters  patent,  then  proceed  to  create  such  a  cor- 
poration, and  to  appoint  twelve  persons  to  constitute  it,  by  the  name 
of  the  "Trustees  of  Dartmouth  College;"  to  have  perpetual  ex- 
istence, as  such  corporation,  and  with  power  to  hold  and  dispose  of 
lands  and  goods,  for  the  use  of  the  college,  with  all  the  ordinary 
powers  of  corporations.  They  are  in  their  discretion  to  apply  the 
funds  and  property  of  the  college  to  the  support  of  the  president, 
tutors,  ministers,  and  other  officers  of  the  college,  and  such  mis- 
sionaries and  schoolmasters  as  they  may  see  fit  to  employ  among 
the  Indians.  There  are  to  be  twelve  trustees  forever,  and  no  more; 
and  they  are  to  have  the  right  of  filling  vacancies  occurring  in  their 
own  body.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Wheelock  is  declared  to  be  the  founder 
of  the  college,  and  is,  by  the  charter,  appointed  first  president,  with 
power  to  appoint  a  successor  by  his  last  will.  All  proper  powers  of 
government,  superintendence,  and  visitation,  are  vested  in  the  trus- 
tees. They  are  to  appoint  and  remove  all  officers  at  their  discre- 
tion; to  fix  their  salaries,  and  assign  their  duties:  and  to  make  all 
ordinances,  orders,  and  laws  for  the  government  of  the  students. 
And  to  the  end  that  the  persons  who  had  acted  as  depositaries  of 
the  contributions  in  England,  and  who  had  also  been  contributors 
themselves,  might  be  satisfied  of  the  good  use  of  their  contributions, 
the  president  was  annually,  or  when  required,  to  transmit  to  them 
an  account  of  the  progress  of  the  institution  and  the  disbursements 
of  its  funds,  so  long  as  they  should  continue  to  act  in  that  trust. — 
These  letters  patent  are  to  be  good  and  effectual,  in  law,  against 
the  king,  his  heirs  and  successors  forever,  without  further  grant  or 
confirmation;  and  the  trustees  are  to  hold  all  and  singular  these 
privileges,  advantages,  liberties,  and  immunities  to  them  and  to  their 
successors  forever. 

No  funds  are  given  to  the  college  by  this  charter.  A  corporate 
existence  and  capacity  are  given  to  the  trustees,  with  the  privileges 
and  immunities  which  have  been  mentioned,  to  enable  the  founder 
and  his  associates  the  better  to  manage  the  funds  which  they  them- 
selves had  contributed,  and  such  others  as  they  might  afterwards 
obtain. 

After  the  institution,  thus  created  and  constituted,  had  existed, 
uninterruptedly  and  usefully,  nearly  fifty  years,  the  legislature  of 
New  Hampshire  passed  the  acts  in  question. 

The  first  act  makes  the  twelve  trustees  under  the  charter,  and 
nine  other  imdividuals  to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  and  council, 
a  corporation,  by  a  new  name;  and  to  this  new  corporation  transfers 
all  the  properly,  rights,  powers,  liberties  and  privileges  of  the  old  cor- 
poration; with  further  power  to  establish  new  colleges  and  an  insti- 
tute, and  to  apply  all  or  any  part  of  the  funds  to  these  purposes* 
subject  to  the  power  and  control  of  a  board  of  twenty-five  overseers, 
to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  and  council. 

The  second  act  makes  further  provisions  for  executing  the  objects 
of  the  first,  and  the  last  act  authorises  the  defendant,  the  treasurer 
of  the  plaintiffs,  to  retain  and  hold  their  property,  against  their  will. 


113 

If  these  acts  are  valid,  the  old  corporation  is  abolished,  and  a 
new  one  created.  The  first  act  does,  in  fact,  if  it  can  have  any  ef- 
fect, create  a  new  corporation,  and  transfer  to  it  all  the  property  and 
franchises  of  the  old.  The  two  corporations  are  not  the  same,  in 
anything  which  essentially  belongs  to  the  existence  of  a  corporation. 
They  have  different  names,  and  different  powers,  rights,  and  duties 
Their  organization  is  wholly  different.  The  powers  of  the  corpora- 
tion are  not  vested  in  the  same,  or  similar  hands.  In  one,  the  trus- 
tees are  twelve,  and  no  more.  In  the  other,  they  are  twenty-one. 
In  one,  the  power  is  in  a  single  board.  In  the  other,  it  is  divided 
between  two  boards.  Although  the  act  professes  to  include  the  old 
trustees  in  the  new  corporation,  yet  that  was  without  their  assent, 
and  against  their  remonstrance;  and  no  person  can  be  compelled  to 
be  a  member  of  such  a  corporation  against  his  will.  It  was  neither 
expected  nor  intended,  that  they  should  be  members  of  the  new 
corporation.  The  act  itself  treats  the  old  corporation  as  at  an  end, 
and  going  on  the  ground  that  all  its  functions  have  ceased,  it  provides 
for  the  first  meeting  and  organization  of  the  new  corporation.  It  ex- 
pressly provides,  also,  that  the  new  corporation  shall  have  and  hold 
all  the  property  of  the  old;  a  provision  which  would  be  quite  un- 
necessary upon  any  other  ground,  than  that  the  old  corporation  was 
dissolved.  But  if  it  could  be  contended,  that  the  effect  of  these 
acts  was  not  entirely  to  abolish  the  old  corporation,  yet  it  is  manifest 
that  they  impair  and  invade  the  rights,  property,  and  powers  of  the 
trustees  under  the  charter,  as  a  corporation,  and  the  legal  rights, 
privileges,  and  immunities  which  belong  to  them,  as  individual  mem- 
bers of  the  corporation. 

The  twelve  trustees  were  the  sole  legal  owners  of  all  the  proper- 
ty acquired  under  the  charter.  By  the  acts  others  are  admitted; 
against  their  will,  to  be  joint  owners.  The  twelve  individuals,  who 
are  trustees,  were  possessed  of  all  the  franchises  and  immunities 
conferred  by  the  charter. — By  the  acts,  nine  other  trustees,  and 
twenty-five  overseers  are  admitted  against  their  will,  to  divide  these 
franchises  and  immunities  with  them. 

If  either  as  a  corporation,  or  as  individuals,  they  have  any  legal 
rights,  this  forcible  intrusion  of  others  violates  those  rights,  as  mani- 
festly as  an  entire  and  complete  ouster  and  dispossession.  These 
acts  alter  the  whole  constitution  of  the  corporation.  They  affect 
the  rights  of  the  whole  body  as  a  corporation,  and  the  rights  of  the 
individuals  who  compose  it.  They  revoke  corporate  powers  and 
franchises. — They  alienate  and  transfer  the  property  of  the  college 
to  others.  By  the  charter,  the  trustees  had  a  right  to  fill  vacancies 
in  their  own  number.  This  is  now  taken  away.  They  were  to 
consist  of  twelve,  and  by  express  provision  of  no  more.  This  is 
altered.  They  and  their  successors,  appointed  by  themselves,  were 
forever  to  hold  the  property.  The  legislature  has  found  successors 
for  them,  before  their  seats  are  vacant.  The  powers  and  privileges, 
which  the  twelve  were  to  exercise  exclusively,  are  now  to  be  exer- 
cised by  others.  By  one  of  the  acts,  they  are  subjected  to  heavy 
penalties,  if  they  exercise  their  offices,  or  any  of  those  powers  and 
privileges  granted  them  by  charter,  and  which  they  had  exercised 
for  fifty  years.  They  are  to  be  punished  for  not  accepting  the  new 
15  K* 


114 

grant,  and  taking  its  benefits.  This,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  rather 
a  summary  mode  of  settling  a  question  of  constitutional  right.  Not 
only  are  new  trustees  forced  into  the  corporation,  but  new  trusts 
and  uses  are  created.  The  college  is  turned  into  a  university. 
Power  is  given  to  create  new  colleges,  and,  to  authorise  any  di- 
version of  the  funds,  which  may  be  agreeable  to  the  new  boards, 
sufficient  latitude  is  given  by  the  undefined  power  of  establishing 
an  Institute.  To  these  new  colleges,  and  this  Institute,  the  funds 
contributed  by  the  founder,  Dr.  Wheelock,  and  by  the  original  do- 
nors, the  Earl  of  Dartmouth  and  others,  are  to  be  applied,  in  plain 
and  manifest  disregard  of  the  uses  to  which  they  were  given. 

The  president,  one  of  the  old  trustees,  had  a  right  to  his  office, 
salary,  and  emoluments,  subject  to  the  twelve  trustees  alone.  His 
title  to  these  is  now  changed,  and  he  is  made  accountable  to  new 
masters.  So  also  all  the  professors  and  tutors.  If  the  legislature 
can  at  pleasure  make  these  alterations  and  changes,  in  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  plaintiffs,  it  may,  with  equal  propriety,  abolish  these 
rights  and  privileges  altogether.  The  same  power  which  can  do  any 
part  of  this  work,  can  accomplish  the  whole.  And  indeed,  the  ar- 
gument on  which  these  acts  have  been  hitherto  defended,  goes  alto- 
gether on  the  ground,  that  this  is  such  a  corporation  as  the  legisla- 
ture may  abolish  at  pleasure;  and  that  its  members  have  no  rights, 
liberties,  franchises,  property  or  privileges,  which  the  legislature  may 
not  revoke,  annul,  alienate  or  transfer  to  others  whenever  it  sees  fit. 

It  will  be  contended  by  the  plaintiffs  that  these  acts  are  not  valid 
and  binding  on  them,  without  their  assent.  1.  Because  they  are 
against  common  right,  and  the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire.  2. 
Because  they  are  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  aware  of  the  limits  which  bound  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
in  this  case,  and  that  on  this  record  nothing  can  be  decided,  but  the 
single  question,  whether  these  acts  are  repugnant  to  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Yet  it  may  assist  in  forming  an  opinion  of 
their  true  nature  and  character,  to  compare  them  with  these  funda- 
mental principles,  introduced  into  the  state  governments  for  the  pur- 
pose of  limiting  the  exercise  of  the  legislative  power,  and  which  the 
constitution  of  New  Hampshire  expresses  with  great  fulness  and 
accuracy. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  assert,  that  the  legislature  of  New  Hamp- 
shire would  not  have  been  competent  to  pass  the  acts  in  question, 
and  to  make  them  binding  on  the  plaintiffs  without  their  assent,  even 
if  there  had  been,  in  the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  or  of  the 
United  States,  no  special  restriction  on  their  power;  because  these 
acts  are  not  the  exercise  of  a  power  properly  legislative.*  Their 
object  and  effect  is  to  take  away,  from  one,  rights,  property,  and 
franchises,  and  to  grant  them  to  another.  This  is  not  the  exercise 
of  a  legislative  power.  To  justify  the  taking  away  of  vested  rights, 
there  must  be  a  forfeiture;  to  adjudge  upon  and  declare  which,  is  the 
proper  province  of  the  judiciary.  Attainder  and  confiscation  are 
acts  of  sovereign  power;  not  acts  of  legislation.  The  British  par- 
liament, among  other  unlimited  powers,  claims  that  of  altering  and 
vacating  charters;  not  as  an  act  of  ordinary  legislation,  but  of  un- 

*  Calder  et  ux.  v.  Bull   3d  Dallas  386. 


115 

controlled  authority.  It  is  theoretically  omnipotent.  Yet,  in  mod- 
ern times,  it  has  attempted  the  exercise  of  this  power  very  rarely. 
[n  a  celebrated  instance,  those  who  asserted  this  power  in  parlia- 
ment, vindicated  its  exercise  only  in  a  case,  in  which  it  could  be 
shown,  1st,  That  the  charter  in  question  was  a  charter  of  political 
power;  2.  That  there  was  a  great  and  overruling  state  necessity, 
justifying  the  violation  of  the  charter.  3.  That  the  charter  had  been 
abused,  and  justly  forfeited.*  The  bill  affecting  this  charter  did 
not  pass.  Its  history  is  well  known.  The  act  which  afterwards  did 
pass,  passed  with  the  assent  of  the  corporation.  Even  in  the  worst 
times  this  power  of  parliament  to  repeal  and  rescind  charters,  has 
not  often  been  exercised.  The  illegal  proceedings  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.  were  undercolor  of  law.  Judgments  of  forfeiture  were 
obtained  in  the  courts.  Such  was  the  case  of  the  quo  warranto 
against  the  city  of  London,  and  the  proceedings  by  which  the  char- 
ter of  Massachusetts  was  vacated. 

The  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  has  no  more  power  over  the 
rights  of  the  plaintiffs  than  existed,  somewhere,  in  some  department 
of  government,  before  the  revolution.  The  British  parliament  could 
not  have  annulled  or  revoked  this  grant  as  an  act  of  ordinary  legis- 
lation. If  it  had  done  it  at  all,  it  could  only  have  been  in  virtue  of 
that  sovereign  power,  called  omnipotent,  which  jdoes  not  belong  to 
any  legislature  in  the  United  States.  The  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  has  the  same  power  over  this  charter,  which  belonged  to 
the  king,  who  granted  it;  and  no  more.  By  the  law  of  England  the 
power  to  create  corporations  is  a  part  of  the  royal  prerogative,  j" 
By  the  revolution,  this  power  may  be  considered  as  having  devolved 
on  the  legislature  of  the  state,  and  it  has  accordingly  been  exer- 
cised by  the  legislature.  But  the  king  cannot  abolish  a  corporation, 
or  new  model  it,  or  alter  its  powers  without  its  assent.  This  is 
the  acknowledged  and  well  known  doctrine  of  the  common  law. 
"  Whatever  might  have  been  the  notion  in  former  times,"  says  lord 
Mansfield,  "it  is  most  certain  now,  that  the  corporations  of  the  uni- 
versities are  lay  corporations;  and  that  the  crown  cannot  take  away 
from  them  any  rights  that  have  been  formerly  subsisting  in  them 
under  old  charters  or  prescriptive  usage. "J  After  forfeiture  duly 
found,  the  king  may  regrant  the  franchises;  but  a  grant  of  franchises 
already  granted,  and  of  which  no  forfeiture  has  been  found,  is  void. 

Corporate  franchises  can  only  be  forfeited  by  trial  and  judgment. § 
In  case  of  a  new  charter  or  grant  to  an  existing  corporation, 
it  may  accept  or  reject  it  as  it  pleases. ||  It  may  accept  such  part 
of  the  grant  as  it  chooses,  and  reject  the  rest.**  In  the  very  na- 
ture of  things,  a  charter  cannot  be  forced  upon  any  body.  No  one 
can  be  compelled  to  accept  a  grant;  and  without  acceptance,  the 
grant  is  necessarily  void.||  It  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  legis- 
lature, as  successor  to  the  king  in  this  part  of  his  prerogative,  has 
any  power  to  revoke,  vacate  or  alter  this  charter.     If,  therefore,  the 

*  Annual  Reg,-.  1784,  p.  160.—  Parlia.  Regr.  1783.— Mr.  Burke's  Speech  on  Mr.  Fox'a 
E.  I.  Bill.  Burke's  Works— 2  Vol.  p.  414.  417.  467.  468.  486. 

1 1  Black.  472,  473.         %  3  Burr.  1656.         §  3  T.  R.  244.  King  vs.  Pasmore. 
||  King  vs.  Vice  Chancellor  of  Cambridge,  3.  Burr.  1656.  3  T.  R.  240.— Lord  Kenyon 
**Idem  1661,  and  King  vs.  Pasmore,  obi  supra.  v. 

ft  Ellis  vs.  Marshall,  2  Mass.  Rep.  277.     1  Kyd.  on  corporations  65.-6. 


116 

legislature  has  not  this  power  by  any  specific  grant  contained  in  the 
constitution;  nor  as  included  in  its  ordinary  legislative  powers;  nor 
by  reason  of  its  succession  to  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown  in  this 
particular;  on  what  ground  would  the  authority  to  pass  these  acts 
rest;  even  if  there  were  no  prohibitory  clauses  in  the  constitution  and 
the  bill  of  rights? 

But  there  are  prohibitions  in  the  constitution  and  bill  of  rights  of 
New  Hampshire,  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  legisla- 
tive power,  and  protecting  the  rights  and  property  of  the  citizens. 
One  prohibition  is  "  that  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  his  properly, 
immunities  or  privileges,  put  out  of  the  protection  of  the  law,  or  deprived 
of  his  life,  liberty  or  estate,  but  by  judgment  of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the 


In  the  opinion,  however,  which  was  given  in  the  court  below,  it  is 
denied  that  the  trustees  under  the  charter,  had  any  property,  immu- 
nity, liberty  or  privilege,  in  this  corporation  within  the  meaning  of 
this  prohibition  in  the  bill  of  rights.  It  is  said  that  it  is  a  public  cor- 
poration, and  public  property.  That  the  trustees  have  no  greater  in- 
terest in  it,  than  any  other  individuals.  That  it  is  not  private  proper- 
ty, which  they  can  sell,  or  transmit  to  their  heirs;  and  that  therefore 
they  have  no  interest  in  it.  That  their  office  is  a  public  trust  like 
that  of  the  governor  or  a  judge;  and  that  they  have  no  more  concern 
in  the  property  of  the  college,  than  the  governor  in  the  property  of 
the  state,  or  than  the  judges  in  the  fines  which  they  impose  on  the 
culprits  at  their  bar.  That  it  is  nothing  to  them,  whether  their  pow- 
ers shall  be  extended  or  lessened;  any  more  than  it  is  to  their  hon- 
ors, whether  their  jurisdiction  shall  be  enlarged  or  diminished.  It 
is  necessary,  therefore,  to  inquire  into  the  true  nature  and  charac 
ter  of  the  corporation,  which  was  created  by  the  charter  of  1769. 

There  are  divers  sorts  of  corporations;  and  it  may  be  safely  aa 
mitted  that  the  legislature  has  more  power  over  some  than  others.* 
Some  corporations  are  for  government  and  political  arrangement; 
such  for  example  as  cities,  counties  and  towns  in  New  England. 
These  may  be  changed  and  modified  as  public  convenience  may 
require,  due  regard  being  always  had  to  the  rights  of  property.  Of 
such  corporations,  all  who  live  within  the  limits  are  of  course  oblig- 
ed to  be  members,  and  to  submit  to  the  duties  which  the  law  impo- 
ses on  them  as  such.  Other  civil  corporations  are  for  the  advance- 
ment of  trade  and  business,  such  as  banks,  insurance  companies, 
and  the  like.  These  are  created  not  by  general  law,  but  usually  by 
grant.  Their  constitution  is  special.  It  is  such  as  the  legislature 
sees  fit  to  give,  and  the  grantees  to  accept. 

The  corporation  in  question  is  not  a  civil,  although  it  is  a  lay  cor- 
poration. It  is  an  eleemosynary  corporation.  It  is  a  private  charity, 
originally  founded  and  endowed  by  an  individual,  with  a  charter 
obtained  for  it  at  his  request,  for  the  better  administration  of  his 
charity.  "  The  eleemosynary  sort  of  corporations,  are  such  as  are 
constituted  for  the  perpetual  distributions  of  the  free  alms  or  bounty 
of  the  founder  of  them,  to  such  persons  as  he  has  directed.  Of 
this  are  all  hospitals  for  the  maintenance  of  the  poor,  sick  and  im 
ootent;  and  all  colleges  both  in  our  universities  and  out  of  them."! 
*  1  Woocldeson  474.     1  Black.  467.  t  *  Black.  471. 


117 

— Eleemosynary  corporations  are  for  the  management  of  private 
property  according  to  the  will  of  the  donors.  They  are  private  cor- 
porations. A  college  is  as  much  a  private  corporation,  as  an  hos- 
pital; especially,  a  college,  founded  as  this  was,  by  private  bounty. 
A  college  is  a  charity. — "  The  establishment  of  learning,"  says  lord 
Hardvvicke,  "  is  a  charity,  and  so  considered  in  the  statute  of  Eliza- 
beth. A  devise  to  a  college,  for  their  benefit,  is  a  laudable  charity, 
and  deserves  encouragement."* 

The  legal  signification  of  a  charity  is  derived  chiefly  from  the 
statute  43  Eliz.  ch.  4.  "  Those  purposes,"  says  sir  William  Grant, 
"are  considered  charitable  which  that  statute  enumerates."!  Col- 
leges are  enumerated,  as  charities  in  that  statute.  The  government, 
in  these  cases,  lends  its  aid  to  perpetuate  the  beneficent  intention  of 
the  donor,  by  granting  a  charter,  under  which  his  private  charity 
shall  continue  to  be  di&pensed,  after  his  death.  This  is  done  either  by 
incorporating  the  objects  of  the  charity,  as  for  instance,  the  scholars 
in  a  college,  or  the  poor  in  an  hospital;  or  by  incorporating  those 
who  are  to  be  governors,  or  trustees  of  the  charity. J  In  cases  of 
the  first  sort  the  founder  is,  by  the  common  law,  visitor.  In  early 
times  it  became  a  maxim,  that  he  who  gave  the  property,  might 
regulate  it  in  future.  Cujus  est  dare,  ejus  est  disponere.  This  right 
of  visitation  descended  from  the  founder  to  his  heir,  as  a  right  of 
property,  and  precisely  as  his  other  property  went  to  his  heir;  and 
in  default  of  heirs,  it  went  to  the  king,  as  all  other  property  goes  to 
the  king  for  the  want  of  heirs. — The  right  of  visitation  arises  from 
the  property.  It  grows  out  of  the  endowment.  The  founder  may,  if 
he  please,  part  with  it,  at  the  time  when  he  establishes  the  charity, 
and  may  vest  it  in  others.  Therefore  if  he  chooses  that  governors, 
trustees  or  overseers  should  be  appointed  in  the  charter,  he  may 
cause  it  to  be  done,  and  his  power  of  visitation  will  be  transferred  to 
them,  instead  of  descending  to  his  heirs.  The  persons  thus  assign- 
ed or  appointed  by  the  founder  will  be  visitors,  with  all  the  powers 
of  the  founder,  in  exclusion  of  his  heir.§  The  right  of  visitation 
then  accrues  to  them,  as  a  matter  of  property,  by  the  gift,  transfer 
or  appointment  of  the  founder.  This  is  a  private  right,  which  they 
can  assert  in  all  legal  modes,  and  in  which  they  have  the  same  pro- 
tection of  the  law  as  in  all  other  rights.  As  visitors  they  may  make 
rules,  ordinances  and  statutes,  and  alter  and  repeal  them,  as  far  as 
permitted  so  to  do  by  the  charter.  ||  Although  the  charter  proceeds 
from  the  crown,  or  the  government,  it  is  considered  as  the  will  of 
the  donor.  It  is  obtained  at  his  request.  He  imposes  it  as  the  rule 
which  is  to  prevail  in  the  dispensation  of  his  bounty  in  all  future 
times.  The  king,  or  government,  which  grants  the  charter  is  not 
thereby  the  founder,  but  he  who  furnishes  the  funds.  The  gift  of 
the  revenues  is  the  foundation.**  The  leading  case  on  this  subject 
is  Phillips  vs.  Bury,  [reported  in  1  Lord  Raymond  5. — Comb.  265. 
—Holt  715.— 1  Show.  360.— 4  Mod.  106.— Skinn.  447.]  This 
was  an  ejectment,  brought  to  recover  the  rectory  house,  &c.  of  Ex- 
eter  College,  in  Oxford.  The  question  was  whether  the  plaintiff"  or 
defendant  was  legal  rector.     Exeter  College  was  founded  by  an  in- 

*  1  Ves.  537.  1 9  Ves.  Jun.  405.  $  1  Wood.  474. 

§  1  Black.  471.  ||  2  Term  Rep.  350—1.  **  1  Black.  480. 


118 

dividual,  and  incorporated  by  a  charter  granted  by  Queen  Elizabeth. 
The  controversy  turned  upon  the  power  of  the  visitor,  and  in  the 
discussion  of  the  cause,  the  nature  of  college  charters  and  corpo- 
rations was  very  fully  considered.  Lord  Holt's  judgment,  copied 
from  his  own  manuscript,  is  in  2  Term  Rep.  346.  The  following  is 
an  extract:  "That  we  may  the  better  apprehend  the  nature  of  a 
visitor,  we  are  to  consider,  that  there  are  in  law  two  sorts  of  corpo- 
rations aggregate:  such  as  are  for  public  government,  and  such  as 
are  for  private  charity.  Those  that  are  for  the  public  government 
of  a  town,  city,  mystery,  or  the  like,  being  for  public  advantage, 
are  to  be  governed  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land;  if  they  make 
any  particular  private  laws  and  constitutions,  the  validity  and  jus- 
tice of  them  is  examinable  in  the  king's  courts;  of  these  there  are 
no  particular  private  founders,  and  consequently  no  particular  visit- 
or; there  are  no  patrons  of  these;  therefore  if  no  provision  be  in 
the  charter  how  the  succession  shall  continue,  the  law  supplieth  the 
defect  of  that  constitution,  and  saith  it  shall  be  by  election;  as  may- 
or, aldermen,  common  council,  and  the  like.  But  private  and  par- 
ticular corporations  for  charity,  founded  and  endowed  by  private 
persons,  are  subject  to  the  private  government  of  those  who  erect 
them;  and,  therefore,  if  there  be  no  visitor  appointed  by  the  found- 
er, the  law  appoints  the  founder  and  his  heirs  to  be  visitors,  who 
are  to  act  and  proceed  according  to  the  particular  laws  and  consti- 
tutions assigned  them  by  the  founder.  It  is  now  admitted  on  all 
hands,  that  the  founder  is  patron,  and,  as  founder,  is  visitor,  if  no 
particular  visitor  be  assigned.  So  that  patronage  and  visitation  are 
necessary  consequents  one  upon  another;  for  this  visitatorial  pow- 
er was  not  introduced  by  any  canons  or  constitutions  ecclesiastical 
(as  was  said  by  a  learned  gentleman  whom  I  have  in  my  eye,  in  his 
argument  of  this  case:)  it  is  an  appointment  of  law;  it  ariseth  from 
the  property  which  the  founder  had  in  the  lands  assigned  to  support 
the  charity;  and  as  he  is  the  author  of  the  charity,  the  law  gives 
him  and  his  heirs  a  visitatorial  power,  that  is,  an  authority  to  inspect 
the  actions  and  regulate  the  behavior  of  the  members  that  partake 
of  the  charity;  for  it  is  fit  the  members  that  are  endowed,  and  that 
have  the  charity  bestowed  upon  them,  should  not  be  left  to  them- 
selves, but  pursue  the  intent  and  design  of  him  that  bestowed  it  up- 
on them.  JSow  indeed,  where  the  poor,  or  those  that  receive  the  charity, 
are  not  incorporated,  but  there  are  certain  trustees  who  dispose  of  the 
charity,  there  is  no  visitor;  because  the  interest  of  the  revenue  is  not  vest- 
ed in  the  poor  that  have  the  benefit  of  the  charity,  but  they  are  subject  to 
the  orders  and  directions  of  the  trustees.  But  where  they  who  are  to 
enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  charity  are  incorporated,  there  to  prevent 
all  perverting  of  the  charity,  or  to  compose  differences  that  may 
happen  among  them,  there  is  by  law  a  visitatorial  power;  and  it  be- 
ing a  creature  of  the  founder's  own,  it  is  reason  that  he  and  his 
heirs  should  have  that  power,  unless  by  the  founder  it  is  vested  in 
some  other.  Now  there  is  no  manner  of  difference  between  a  col- 
lege and  an  hospital,  except  only  in  degree ;  an  hospital  is  for  those 
that  are  poor,  and  mean,  and  low,  and  sickly:  a  college  is  for  anoth- 
er sort  of  indigent  persons;  but  it  hath  another  intent,  to  study  in, 
and  breed  up  persons  in  the  world,  that  have  no  otherwise  to  live; 


119 

but  still  it  is  as  much  within  the  reasons  as  hospitals.  And  if  in  an 
hospital  the  master  and  poor  are  incorporated,  it  is  a  college  having 
a  common  seal  to  act  by,  although  it  hath  not  the  name  of  a  college, 
(which  always  supposeth  a  corporation)  because  it  is  of  an  inferior 
degree;  and  in  the  one  case  and  in  the  other  there  must  be  a  visitor, 
either  the  founder  and  his  heirs,  or  one  appointed  by  him;  and  both 
are  eleemosynary."  Lord  Holt  concludes  his  whole  argument  by 
again  repeating,  that  that  college  was  a  private  corporation,  and  that 
the  founder  had  a  right  to  appoint  a  visitor,  and  to  give  him  such 
power  as  he  saw  fit.* 

The  learned  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  argument  in  the  same  cause  as 
a  member  of  the  house  of  lords,  when  it  was  there  heard,  exhibits 
very  clearly  the  nature  of  colleges  and  similar  corporations.  It  is 
to  the  following  effect.  "  That  this  absolute  and  conclusive  power 
of  visitors,  is  no  more  than  the  law  hath  appointed  in  other  cases, 
upon  commissions  of  charitable  uses:  that  the  common  law,  and  not 
any  ecclesiastical  canons,  do  place  the  power  of  visitation  in  the 
founder  and  his  heirs,  unless  he  settle  it  upon  others:  that  although 
corporations  for  public  government  be  subject  to  the  courts  of  West- 
minster-Hall, which  have  no  particular,  or  special  visitors;  yet  cor- 
porations for  charity,  founded  and  endowed  by  private  persons,  are 
subject  to  the  rule  and  government  of  those  that  erect  them;  but 
where  the  persons  to  whom  the  charity  is  given  are  not  incorporated, 
there  is  no  such  visitatorial  power,  because  the  interest  of  the  reve- 
nue is  not  invested  in  them;  but  where  they  are,  the  right  of  visita- 
tion ariseth  from  the  foundation,  and  the  founder  may  convey  it  to 
whom  and  in  what  manner  he  pleases;  and  the  visitor  acts  as  founder,  and 
by  the  same  authority  which  he  had,  and  consequently  is  no  more  account- 
able than  he  had  been:  that  the  king  by  his  charter  can  make  a  soci- 
ety to  be  incorporated  so  as  to  have  the  rights  belonging  to  persons, 
as  to  legal  capacities:  that  colleges,  although  founded  by  private  per- 
sons, are  yet  incorporated  by  the  king's  charter;  but  although  the 
kings  by  their  charter  made  the  colleges  to  be  such  in  law,  that  is, 
to  be  legal  corporations,  yet  they  left  to  the  particular  founders  au- 
thority to  appoint  what  statutes  they  thought  fit  for  the  regulation  of 
them.  And  not  only  the  statutes,  but  the  appointment  of  visitors 
was  left  to  them,  and  the  manner  of  government,  and  the  several 
conditions,  on  which  any  persons  were  to  be  made  or  continue  par- 
takers of  their  bounty. |  These  opinions  received  the  sanction  of 
the  house  of  lords,  and  they  seem  to  be  settled  and  undoubted  law. 
Where  there  is  a  charter,  vesting  proper  powers  in  trustees,  or  gov- 
ernors, they  are  visitors;  and  there  is  no  control  in  anybody  else; 
except  only  that  the  courts  of  equity  or  of  law  will  interfere  so  far  as 
to  preserve  the  revenues  and  prevent  the  perversion  of  the  funds  and 
to  keep  the  visitors  within  their  prescribed  bounds.  "  If  there  be  a 
charter  with  proper  powers,  the  charity  must  be  regulated  in  the  man- 
ner prescribed  by  the  charter.  There  is  no  ground  for  the  control- 
ling interposition  of  the  courts  of  chancery.  The  interposition  of 
the  courts  therefore,  in  those  instances  in  which  the  charities  were 
founded  on  charters  or  by  act  of  parliament,  and  a  visitor,  or  governor 
and  trustees  appointed,  must  be  referred  to  the  general  jurisdiction 

*  1  Lord  Ray.  9.  f  See  Appendix  No.  3.     1  Burn's  Eccles.  Law  443. 


of  the  courts  in  all  cases  in  which  a  trust  conferred  appears  to  have 
been  abused,  and  not  to  an  original  right  to  direct  the  management  of 
the  charity,  or  the  conduct  of  the  governors  or  trustees."* — "  The  orig- 
inal of  all  visitatorial  power  is  the  property  of  the  donor,  and  the 
power  every  one  has  to  dispose,  direct  and  regulate  his  own  proper- 
ty; like  the  case  of  patronage;  cujus  est  dare,  fyc.  Therefore,  if  either 
the  crown  or  the  subject  creates  an  eleemosynary  foundation,  and  vests  the 
charity  in  the  persons  who  are  to  receive  the  benefit  of  it,  since  a  contest 
might  arise  about  the  government  of  it,  the  law  alloivs  the  founder  or  his 
heirs,  or  the  person  specially  appointed  by  him  to  be  visitor,  to  determine 
concerning  his  own  creature.  If  the  charity  is  not  vested  in  the  persons, 
who  are  to  partake,  but  in  trustees  for  their  benefit,  no  visitor  can  arise 
by  implication,  but  the  trustees  have  that  power,  "f 

"  There  is  nothing  better  established,"  says  lord  commissioner 
Eyre,  "  than  that  this  court  does  not  entertain  a  general  jurisdiction, 
or  regulate  and  control  charities  established  by  charter.  There  the 
establishment  is  fixed  and  determined;  and  the  court  has  no  power 
to  vary  it.  If  the  governors  established  for  the  regulation  of  it,  are 
not  those  who  have  the  management  of  the  revenue,  this  court  has 
no  jurisdiction,  and  if  it  is  ever  so  much  abused  as  far  as  it  respects 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  court,  it  is  without  remedy;  but  if  those  es- 
tablished as  governors,  have  also  the  management  of  the  revenues, 
this  court  does  assume  a  jurisdiction  of  necessity,  so  far  as  they  are 
to  be  considered  as  trustees  of  the  revenue. "J 

"  The  foundations  of  colleges,"  says  lord  Mansfield,  "  are  to  be 
considered  in  two  views,  viz.  as  they  are  corporations  and  as  they 
are  eleemosynary.  As  eleemosynary,  they  are  the  creatures  of  the 
founder;  he  may  delegate  his  power,  either  generally  or  specially; 
he  may  prescribe  particular  modes  and  manners,  as  to  the  exercise 
of  part  of  it.  If  he  makes  a  general  visitor,  (as  by  the  general 
words  visitator  sit)  the  person  so  constituted  has  aH  incidental  power; 
but  he  may  be  restrained  as  to  particular  instances.  The  founder 
may  appoint  a  special  visitor  for  a  particular  purpose  and  no  further. 
The  founder  may  make  a  general  visitor;  and  yet  appoint  an  inferior 
particular  power,  to  be  executed  without  going  to  the  visitor  in  the 
first  instance. "§  And  even  if  the  king  be  founder,  if  he  grant  a 
charter,  incorporating  trustees  and  governors,  they  are  visitors,  and 
the  king  cannot  visit. ||  A  subsequent  donation,  or  engrafted  fel- 
lowship, falls  under  the  same  general  visitatorial  power,  if  not  other- 
wise specially  provided.** 

In  New  England,  and  perhaps  throughout  the  United  States, 
eleemosynary  corporations  have  been  generally  established  in  the 
latter  mode;  that  is,  by  incorporating  governors,  or  trustees,  and 
vesting  in  them  the  right  of  visitation.  Small  variations  may  have 
been  in  some  instances  adopted;  as  in  the  case  of  Harvard  College, 
where  some  power  of  inspection  is  given  to  the  overseers,  but  not 
strictly  speaking,  a  visitatorial  power,  which  still  belongs,  it  is  appre- 

*  2  Fonb.  205—6.         f  1  Ves.  472.     Green  vs.  Rutherforth,  per  Lord  Hardwicke. 
^  Attorney  General  vs.  Foundling  Hospital,  2  Ves.  Junr.  47.     Vide  also  2  Kyd  on  Cor- 
porations, 195.     Cooper's  Equity  Pleading,  292. 

§  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge  vs.  Todington,  1  Burr.  200. 

||  Attorney  General  vs.  Middleton,  2  Ves.  328. 

**  Green  vs.  Rutherforth,  ubi  supra.     St.  John's  College,  vs.  Todington,  ubi  supra. 


121 

hended  to  the  fellows,  or  members  of  the  corporation.  In  general, 
there  are  many  donors.  A  charter  is  obtained,  comprising  them  all, 
or  some  of  them,  and  such  others  as  they  choose  to  include,  with 
the  right  of  appointing  their  successors.  They  are  thus  the  visitors 
of  their  own  charity  and  appoint  others,  such  as  they  may  see  fit, 
to  exercise  the  same  office  in  time  to  come.  All  such  corporations 
are  private.  The  case  before  the  court  is  clearly  that  of  an  elee- 
mosynary corporation.  It  is,  in  the  strictest  legal  sense  a  private 
charity.  In  King  vs.  St.  Catherine's  Hall,*  that  college  is  called 
a  private  eleemosynary  lay  corporation.  It  was  endowed  by  a  private 
founder,  and  incorporated  by  letters  patent.  And  in  the  same  man- 
ner was  Dartmouth  College  founded  and  incorporated.  Dr.  Whee- 
lock  is  declared  by  the  charter  to  be  its  founder.  It  was  established 
by  him,  on  funds  contributed  and  collected  by  himself. 

As  such  founder,  he  had  a  right  of  visitation,  which  he  assigned  to 
the  trustees,  and  they  received  it  by  his  consent  and  appointment, 
and  held  it  under  the  charter.!  He  appointed  these  trustees  visit- 
ors, and  in  that  respect  to  take  place  of  his  heir;  as  he  might  have 
appointed  devisees,  to  take  his  estate  instead  of  his  heir.  Little, 
probably,  did  he  think  at  that  time,  that  the  legislature  would  ever 
take  away  this  property  and  these  privileges,  and  give  them  to 
others.  Little  did  he  suppose,  that  this  charter  secured  to  him  and 
his  successors  no  legal  rights.  Little  did  the  other  donors  think  so. 
If  they  had,  the  college  would  have  been,  what  the  university  is 
now,  a  thing  upon  paper,  existing  only  in  name. 

The  numerous  academies  in  New  England  have  been  established 
substantially  in  the  same  manner.  They  hold  their  property  by  the 
same  tenure,  and  no  other.  Nor  has  Harvard  College  any  surer 
title  than  Dartmouth  College.  It  may,  to-day,  have  more  friends; 
but  to-morrow  it  may  have  more  enemies.  Its  legal  rights  are  the 
same.  So  also  of  Yale  College;  and  indeed  of  all  the  others. 
When  the  legislature  gives  to  these  institutions,  it  may  and  does 
accompany  its  grants  with  such  conditions  as  it  pleases.  The  grant 
of  lands  by  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  to  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege, in  1789,  was  accompanied  with  various  conditions.  When 
donations  are  made,  by  the  legislature,  or  others,  to  a  charity  al- 
ready existing,  without  any  condition,  or  the  specification  of  any  new 
use,  the  donation  follows  the  nature  of  the  charity.  Hence  the 
doctrine,  that  all  eleemosynary  corporations  are  private  bodies. 
They  are  founded  by  private  persons,  and  on  private  property.  The 
public  cannot  be  charitable  in  these  institutions.  It  is  not  the 
money  of  the  public,  but  of  private  persons,  which  is  dispensed.  It 
may  be  public,  that  is  general,  in  its  uses  and  advantages;  and  the 
state  may  very  laudably  add  contributions  of  its  own  to  the  funds; 
but  it  is  still  private  in  the  tenure  of  the  property,  and  in  the  right 
of  administering  the  funds. 

If  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  lord  Holt,  and  the  house  of  lords  in 
Phillips  vs.  Bury,  and  recognised  and  established  in  all  the  other 
cases,  be  correct,  the  property  of  this  college  was  private  property; 
it  was  vested  in  the  trustees  by  the  charter,  and  to  be  administered 
by  them,  according  to  the  will  of  the   founder  and  donors  as  ex- 

*  4  Term  Rep.  233.  t  Black,  ubi  supra. 

16  L 


122 

pressed  in  the  charter.  They  were  also  visitors  of  the  charity, 
in  the  most  ample  sense.  They  had  therefore,  as  they  contend, 
privileges,  property,  and  immunities,  within  the  true  meaning  of  the 
bill  of  rights.  They  had  rights  and  still  have  them,  which  they 
can  assert  against  the  legislature,  as  well  as  against  other  wrong- 
doers. It  makes  no  difference,  that  the  estate  is  holden  for  cer- 
tain trusts.  The  legal  estate  is  still  theirs.  They  have  a  right 
in  the  property,  and  they  have  a  right  of  visiting  and  superintend- 
ing the  trust;  and  this  is  an  object  of  legal  protection,  as  much  as 
any  other  right.  The  charter  declares  that  the  powers  conferred  on 
the  trustees  are  "  privileges,  advantages,  liberties,  and  immunities;" 
and  that  they  shall  be  forever  holden  by  them  and  their  successors. 
The  New  Hampshire  bill  of  rights  declares  that  no  one  shall  be 
deprived  of  his  "  property,  privileges  or  immunities,"  but  by  judg- 
ment of  his  peers,  or  the  law  of  the  land.  The  argument  on  the 
other  side  is,  that  although  these  terms  may  mean  something  in  the 
bill  of  rights,  they  mean  nothing  in  this  charter.  But  they  are  terms 
of  legal  signification,  and  very  properly  used  in  the  charter.  They 
are  equivalent  with  franchises.  Blackstone  says  that  franchise  and 
liberty  are  used  as  synonymous  terms.  And  after  enumerating  oth- 
er liberties  and  franchises,  he  says,  "  it  is  likewise  a  franchise  for  a 
number  of  persons  to  be  incorporated  and  subsist  as  a  body  politic; 
with  a  power  to  maintain  perpetual  succession  and  do  other  corpo- 
rate acts:  and  each  individual  member  of  such  a  corporation  is  also  said 
to  have  a  franchise  or  freedom."* 

Liberties  is  the  term  used  in  magna  charta  as  including  franchises, 
privileges,  immunities,  and  all  the  rights  which  belong  to  that  class 
Professor  Sullivan  says,  the  term  signifies  the  "  privileges  that  some 
of  the  subjects,  whether  single  persons  or  bodies  corporate,  have 
above  others  by  the  lawful  grant  of  the  king;  as  the  chattels  of  fel- 
ons or  outlaws,  and  the  lands  and  privileges  of  corporations."^ 

The  privilege,  then,  of  being  a  member  of  a  corporation,  under 
a  lawful  grant,  and  of  exercising  the  rights  and  powers  of  such 
member,  is  such  a  privilege,  liberty  or  franchise,  as  has  been  the  ob- 
ject of  legal  protection,  and  the  subject  of  a  legal  interest,  from  the 
time  of  magna  charta  to  the  present  moment.  The  plaintiffs  have 
such  an  interest  in  this  corporation,  individually,  as  they  could  as- 
sert and  maintain  in  a  court  of  law,  not  as  agents  of  the  public, 
but  in  their  own  right.  Each  trustee  has  a  franchise,  and  if  he  be 
disturbed  in  the  enjoyment  of  it,  he  would  have  redress,  on  appeal- 
ing to  the  law,  as  promptly  as  for  any  other  injury.  If  the  other 
trustees  should  conspire  against  any  one  of  them  to  prevent  his 
equal  right  and  voice  in  the  appointment  of  a  president  or  professor, 
or  in  the  passing  of  any  statute  or  ordinance  of  the  college,  he 
would  be  entitled  to  his  action,  for  depriving  him  of  his  franchise. 
It  makes  no  difference,  that  this  property  is  to  be  holden  and  admin- 
istered, and  these  franchises  exercised  for  the  purpose  of  diffusing 
learning.  No  principle  and  no  case  establishes  any  such  distinc- 
tion. The  public  may  be  benefitted  by  the  use  of  this  property. 
But  this  does  not  change  the  nature  of  the  property,  or  the  rights 
of  the  owners.  The  object  of  the  charter  may  be  public  good;  so 
*  2  Black.  Com.  37.  f  Sull.  41st  Lect. 


123 

it  is  in  all  other  corporations;  and  this  would  as  well  justify  the  re- 
sumption or  violation  of  the  grant  in  any  other  case  as  in  this.  In 
the  case  of  an  advowson,  the  use  is  public,  and  the  right  cannot  be 
turned  to  any  private  benefit  or  emolument.  It  is  nevertheless  a 
legal  private  right,  and  the  properly  of  the  owner,  as  emphatically  as 
his  freehold.  The  rights  and  privileges  of  trustees,  visitors,  or  gov- 
ernors of  incorporated  colleges,  stand  on  the  same  foundation. 
They  are  so  considered,  both  by  lord  Holt  and  lord  Hardwicke.* 

To  contend  that  the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  may  be  taken  away, 
because  they  derive  from  them  no  pecuniary  benefit,  or  private 
emolument,  or  because  they  cannot  be  transmitted  to  their  heirs,  or 
would  not  be  assets  to  pay  their  debts,  is  taking  an  extremely  narrow 
view  of  the  subject.  According  to  this  notion,  the  case  would  be 
different,  if,  in  the  charter,  they  had  stipulated  for  a  commission  on 
the  disbursement  of  the  funds;  and  they  have  ceased  to  have  any  in- 
terest in  the  property,  because  they  have  undertaken  to  administer 
it  gratuitously. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  say  much  in  refutation  of  the  idea,  that 
there  cannot  be  a  legal  interest,  or  ownership,  in  anything  which  does 
not  yield  a  pecuniary  profit;  as  if  the  law  regarded  no  rights  but  the 
rights  of  money,  and  of  visible  tangible  property.  Of  what  nature 
are  all  rights  of  suffrage  ?  No  elector  has  a  particular  personal  in- 
terest; but  each  has  a  legal  right,  to  be  exercised  at  his  own  discre- 
tion, and  it  cannot  be  taken  away  from  him.  The  exercise  of  this 
right  directly  and  very  materially  affects  the  public;  much  more  so 
than  the  exercise  of  the  privileges  of  a  trustee  of  this  college. 
Consequences  of  the  utmost  magnitude  may  sometimes  depend  on 
the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage  by  one  or  a  few  electors.  No- 
body was  ever  yet  heard  to  contend,  however,  that  on  that  account 
the  public  might  take  away  the  right  or  impair  it.  This  notion  ap- 
pears to  be  borrowed  from  no  better  source  than  the  repudiated  doc- 
trine of  the  three  judges  in  the  Aylesbury  case.f  That  was  an  ac- 
tion against  a  returning  officer  for  refusing  the  plaintiff's  vote,  in 
the  election  of  a  member  of  parliament. — Three  of  the  judges  of 
the  king's  bench  held,  that  the  action  could  not  be  maintained,  be- 
cause among  other  objections,  "  it  was  not  any  matter  of  profit)  either 
in  presenti,  or  infuturo."  It  would  not  enrich  the  plaintiff,  in  presen 
ti,  nor  would  it,  infuturo,  go  to  his  heirs,  or  answer  to  pay  his  debts. 
But  lord  Holt  and  the  house  of  lords  were  of  another  opinion.  The 
judgment  of  the  three  judges  was  reversed,  and  the  doctrine  they 
held,  having  been  exploded  for  a  century,  seems  now  for  the  first 
time  to  be  revived. 

Individuals  have  a  right  to  use  their  own  property  for  purposes  of 
benevolence,  either  towards  the  public,  or  towards  other  individuals. 
They  have  a  right  to  exercise  this  benevolence  in  such  lawful  man- 
ner as  they  may  choose;  and  when  the  government  has  induced  and 
excited  it,  by  contracting  to  give  perpetuity  to  the  stipulated  manner  of 
exercising  it,  to  rescind  this  contract,  and  seize  on  the  property,  is 
not  law,  but  violence.  Whether  the  state  will  grant  these  franchises, 
and  under  what  conditions  it  will  grant  them,  it  decides  for  itself. 

*  Phillips  vs.  Bury. — Green  vs.  Rutherforth,  ubi  supra. — Vide  also  2  Black.  21. 
f  Ashby  vs.  White,  2  Lord  Ray.  938. 


124 

But  when  once  granted,  the  constitution  holds  them  to  be  sacred, 
till  forfeited  for  just  cause. 

That  all  property,  of  which  the  use  may  be  beneficial  to  the  pub- 
lic, belongs  therefore  to  the  public,  is  quite  a  new  doctrine.  It  has 
f  no  precedent,  and  is  supported  by  no  known  principle.  Dr.  Wheelock 
might  have  answered  his  purposes,  in  this  case,  by  executing  a 
private  deed  of  trust. — He  might  have  conveyed  his  property  to 
trustees,  for  precisely  such  uses  as  are  described  in  this  charter. 
Indeed  it  appears,  that  he  had  contemplated  the  establishing  of  his 
school  in  that  manner,  and  had  made  his  will,  and  devised  the  prop- 
erty to  the  same  persons  who  were  afterwards  appointed  trustees  in 
the  charter.  Many  literary  and  other  charitable  institutions  are 
founded  in  that  manner,  and  the  trust  is  renewed,  and  conferred  on 
other  persons,  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  may  require.  In  such 
a  case,  no  lawyer  would  or  could  say  that  the  legislature  might  di- 
vest the  trustees,  constituted  by  deed  or  will,  seize  upon  the  prop- 
erty, and  give  it  to  other  persons,  for  other  purposes.  And  does 
the  granting  of  a  charter,  which  is  only  done  to  perpetuate  the  trust 
in  a  more  convenient  manner  make  any  difference?  Does  or  can 
this  change  the  nature  of  the  charity,  and  turn  it  into  a  public  polit- 
ical corporation? — Happily  we  are  not  without  authority  on  this 
point.  It  has  been  considered  and  adjudged.  Lord  Hardwicke 
says,  in  so  many  words,  "  the  charter  of  the  crown  cannot  make  a 
charity  more  or  less  public,  but  only  more  permanent  than  it  would 
otherwise  be.# 

The  granting  of  the  corporation  is  but  making  the  trust  perpetual, 
and  does  not  alter  the  nature  of  the  charity.  The  very  object  sought 
in  obtaining  such  charter,  and  in  giving  property  to  such  a  corpo- 
ration, is  to  make  and  keep  it  private  property,  and  to  clothe  it  with 
all  the  security  and  inviolability  of  private  property.  The  intent  is, 
that  there  shall  be  a  legal  private  ownership,  and  that  the  legal  own- 
ers shall  maintain  and  protect  the  property,  for  the  benefit  of  those 
for  whose  use  it  was  designed.  Who  ever  endowed  the  public? 
Who  ever  appointed  a  legislature  to  administer  his  charity?  Or 
who  ever  heard,  before,  that  a  gift  to  a  college,  or  hospital,  or  an 
asylum,  was,  in  reality,  nothing  but  a  gift  to  the  state. 

The  state  of  Vermont  is  a  principal  donor  to  Dartmouth  College. 
The  lands  given  lie  in  that  state.  This  appears  in  the  special  ver- 
dict. Is  Vermont  to  be  considered  as  having  intended  a  gift  to  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  in  this  case;  as  it  has  been  said  is  to  be 
the  reasonable  construction  of  all  donations  to  the  college?  The 
legislature  of  New  Hampshire  affects  to  represent  the  public,  and 
therefore  claims  a  right  to  control  all  property  destined  to  public  use. 
What  hinders  Vermont  from  considering  herself  equally  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  'public,  and  from  resuming  her  grants,  at  her  own 
pleasure?  Her  right  to  do  so  is  less  doubtful  than  the  power  of 
New  Hampshire  to  pass  the  laws  lu  question. 

In  University  vs.  Foy|  the  supreme  court  of  North  Carolina 
pronounced  unconstitutional  and  void,  a  law  repealing  a  grant  to  the 
University  of  North  Carolina;  although  that  university  was  originally 
erected  and  endowed  by  a  statute  of  the  state.     That  case  was  a 

*  2  Atk.  87.  Attorney  General  vs.  Pearce.  f  2  Haywood's  Rep. 


125 

grant  of  lands,  and  the  court  decided  that  it  could  not  be  resumed. 
This  is  the  grant  of  a  power  and  capacity  to  hold  lands.  Where  is 
the  difference  of  the  cases,  upon  principle  ? 

In  Terrett  vs.  Taylor*  this  court  decided,  that  a  legislative  grant 
or  confirmation  of  lands,  for  the  purposes  of  moral  and  religious 
instruction,  could  no  more  be  rescinded  than  other  grants.  The 
nature  of  the  use  was  not  holden  to  make  any  difference.  A  grant 
to  a  parish  or  church,  for  the  purposes  which  have  been  mentioned, 
cannot  be  distinguished,  in  respect  to  the  title  it  confers,  from  a 
grant  to  a  college  for  the  promotion  of  piety  and  learning.  To  the 
same  purpose  may  be  cited  the  case  of  Pawlett  vs.  Clark.  The 
state  of  Vermont,  by  statute  in  1794,  granted  to  the  respective 
towns  in  that  state,  certain  glebe  lands  lying  within  those  towns  for 
the  sole  use  and  support  of  religious  worship.  In  1799,  an  act  was  pas- 
sed to  repeal  the  act  of  1794;  but  this  court  declared,  that  the  act  of 
1794,  "  so  far  as  it  granted  the  glebes  to  the  towns,  coidd  not  after- 
wards be  repealed  by  the  legislature,  so  as  to  divest  the  rights  of  the  towns 
under  the  grant."~\ 

It  will  be  for  the  other  side  to  show,  that  the  nature  of  the  use, 
decides  the  question,  whether  the  legislature  has  power  to  resume 
its  grants.  It  will  be  for  those,  who  maintain  such  a  doctrine,  to 
show  the  principles  and  cases  upon  which  it  rests.  It  will  be  for 
them  also  to  fix  the  limits  and  boundaries  of  their  doctrine,  and  to 
show,  what  are  and  what  are  not,  such  uses  as  to  give  the  legisla- 
ture this  power  of  resumption  and  revocation.  And  to  furnish  an 
answer  to  the  cases  cited,  it  will  be  for  them  further  to  show,  that  a 
grant  for  the  use  and  support  of  religious  worship,  stands  on  other 
ground  than  a  grant  for  the  promotion  of  piety  and  learning. 

I  hope  enough  has  been  said  to  show,  that  the  trustees  possessed 
vested  liberties,  privileges,  and  immunities,  under  this  charter;  and 
that  such  liberties,  privileges  and  immunities,  being  once  lawfully 
obtained  and  vested,  are  as  inviolable  as  any  vested  rights  of  prop- 
erty whatever. — Rights  to  do  certain  acts,  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
visitation  and  superintendence  of  a  college  and  the  appointment  of 
its  officers,  may  surely  be  vested  rights,  to  all  legal  intents,  as  com- 
pletely as  the  right  to  possess  property.  A  late  learned  judge  of 
this  court  has  said,  when  I  say  that  a  right  is  vested  in  a  citizen,  I 
mean  that  he  has  the  power  to  do  certain  actions;  or  to  possess  certain 
things;  according  to  the  law  of  the  land. J 

If  such  be  the  true  nature  of  the  plaintiffs'  interests  under  this 
charter,  what  are  the  articles  in  the  New  Hampshire  bill  of  rights 
which  these  acts  infringe  ? 

They  infringe  the  second  article;  which  says,  that  the  citizens  of 
the  state  have  a  right  to  hold  and  possess  property.  The  plaintiffs 
had  a  legal  property  in  this  charter;  and  they  had  acquired  property  ] 
tinder  it.  The  acts  deprive  them  of  both.  They  impair  and  take 
away  the  charter;  and  they  appropriate  the  property  to  new  uses, 
against  their  consent.  The  plaintiffs  cannot  now  hold  the  property 
acquired  by  themselves,  and  which  this  article  says  they  have  a 
right  to  hold. 

*  9  Cranch  43.  f  9  Cranch  292.  $  3  Dal.  394 


126 

They  infringe  the  twentieth  article.  By  that  article  it  is  declared, 
that  in  questions  of  property,  there  is  a  right  to  trial.  The  plaintiffs 
are  divested,  ivilhout  trial  or  judgment. 

They  infringe  the  twenty-third  aiiicle.  It  is  therein  declared,  that 
no  retrospective  laws  shall  be  passed.  This  article  bears  directly  on 
the  case.  These  acts  must  be  deemed  to  be  retrospective,  within  the 
settled  construction  of  that  term.  What  a  retrospective  law  is,  has 
been  decided  on  the  construction  of  this  very  article,  in  the  circuit 
court  for  the  first  circuit.  The  learned  judge  of  that  circuit,  says, 
"  every  statute  which  takes  away,  or  impairs,  vested  rights,  acquired 
under  existing  laws,  must  be  deemed  retrospective."*  That  all 
such  laws  are  retrospective,  was  decided  also  in  the  case  of  Dash 
vs.  Van  Kleek")*  where  a  most  learned  judge  quotes  this  article  from 
the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  with  manifest  approbation,  as 
a  plain  and  clear  expression  of  those  fundamental  and  unalterable 
principles  of  justice,  which  must  lie  at  the  foundation  of  every  free 
and  just  system  of  laws.  Can  any  man  deny  that  the  plaintiffs  had 
rights,  under  the  charter,  which  were  legally  vested,  and  that  by 
these  acts,  those  rights  are  impaired! 

"  It  is  a  principle  in  the  English  law,"  says  chief  justice  Kent, 
in  the  case  last  cited,  "  as  ancient  as  the  law  itself,  that  a  statute, 
even  of  its  omnipotent  parliament,  is  not  to  have  a  retrospective 
effect.  Nova  conslitutio  futuris  formam  imponere  debet,  et  non  prceteri- 
tis.'l  The  maxim  in  Bracton,  was  probably  taken  from  the  civil  law, 
for  we  find  in  that  system  the  same  principle,  that  the  lawgiver  can- 
not alter  his  mind  to  the  prejudice  of  a  vested  right.  Nemo  potest 
mutare  concilium  suum  in  alterius  injuriam.^  This  maxim  of  Papin- 
ian  is  general  in  its  terms,  but  Dr.  Taylor||  applies  it  directly  as  a 
restriction  upon  the  lawgiver,  and  a  declaration  in  the  code  leaves 
no  doubt  as  to  the  sense  of  the  civil  law.  Leges  et  constitutions  futu- 
ris certum  est  dare  formam  negotiis,  non  ad  facta  prceterita  revocari,  nisi 
nominatim,  et  de  prozterito  tempore,  et  adhuc  pendentibus  negotiis  cautum 
sit.H  This  passage,  according  to  the  best  interpretation  of  the 
civilians,  relates  not  merely  to  future  suits,  but  to  future,  as  contra- 
distinguished from  past  contracts  and  vested  rights.**  It  is,  indeed, 
admitted  that  the  prince  may  enact  a  retrospective  law,  provided  it 
be  done  expressly;  for  the  will  of  the  prince  under  the  despotism  of 
the  Roman  Emperors  was  paramount  to  every  obligation.  Great 
latitude  was  anciently  allowed  to  legislative  expositions  of  statutes; 
for  the  separation  of  the  judicial  from  the  legislative  power  was  not 
then  distinctly  known  or  prescribed.  The  prince  was  in  the  habit 
of  interpreting  his  own  laws  for  particular  occasions.  This  was 
called  the  Interlocutio  Principis;  and  this,  according  to  Huber's  de- 
finition, was,  quando  principes  inter  partes  loquuntur  et  jus  dicunt.f\ 
No  correct  civilian,  and  especially  no  proud  admirer  of  the  ancient 
republic,  (if  any  such  then  existed)  could  have  reflected  on  this  inter- 
ference with  private  rights  and  pending  suits  without  disgust  and  in- 
dignation; and  we  are  rather  surprised  to  find  that  under  the  violent 

*  2  Gal.  103.  Society  vs.  Wheeler.  f  7  Johnson's  Rep.  477. 

$  Bracton  Lib.  4.  fol.  228.  2nd  Inst.  292.  §  Dig.  50.  17.  75. 

||  Elements  of  the  Civil  Law  168.  ITCod.  1.  14.  7. 

**  Perezii  Praelect.  h.  t.  tt  Prelect  Juris  Civ.  vol.  2.  545. 


127 

and  irregular  genius  of  the  Roman  government,  the  principle  be- 
fore us  should  have  been  acknowledged  and  obeyed  to  the  extent  in 
which  we  find  it.  The  fact  shows  that  it  must  be  founded  in  the 
clearest  justice.  Our  case  is  happily  very  different  from  that  of 
the  subjects  of  Justinian.  With  us,  the  power  of  the  lawgiver  is 
limited  and  defined;  the  judicial  is  regarded  as  a  distinct,  indepen- 
dent power:  private  rights  have  been  better  understood  and  more 
exalted  in  public  estimation,  as  well  as  secured  by  provisions  dicta- 
ted by  the  spirit  of  freedom,  and  unknown  to  the  civil  law.  Our 
constitutions  do  not  admit  the  power  assumed  by  the  Roman  prince, 
and  the  principle  we  are  considering  is  now  to  be  regarded  as 
sacred." 

These  acts  infringe  also  the  thirty-seventh  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  New  Hampshire;  which  says,  that  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment shall  be  kept  separate.  By  these  acts,  the  legislature  assumes 
to  exercise  a  judicial  power.  It  declares  a  forfeiture,  and  resumes 
franchises,  once  granted,  without  trial  or  hearing. 

If  the  constitution  be  not  altogether  waste  paper,  it  has  restrained 
the  power  of  the  legislature,  in  these  particulars.  If  it  has  any 
meaning,  it  is,  that  the  legislature  shall  pass  no  act  directly  and 
manifestly  impairing  private  property  and  private  privileges.  It  shall 
not  judge,  by  act.  It  shall  not  decide,  by  act.  It  shall  not  deprive, 
by  act.  But  it  shall  leave  all  these  things  to  be  tried  and  adjudged, 
by  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  fifteenth  article  has  been  referred  to  before.  It  declares  that 
no  one  shall  be  "  deprived  of  his  property,  immunities  or  privileges, 
but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the  land."  Not- 
withstanding the  light  in  which  the  learned  judges  in  New  Hamp- 
shire viewed  the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  under  the  charter,  and  which 
has  been  before  adverted  to,  it  is  found  to  be  admitted  in  their  opin- 
ion, that  those  rights  are  privileges  within  the  meaning  of  this  fifteenth 
article  of  the  bill  of  rights.  Having  quoted  that  article,  they  say: 
"  that  the  right  to  manage  the  affairs  of  this  college,  is  a  privilege 
within  the  meaning  of  this  clause  of  the  bill  of  rights,  is  not  to  be 
doubted."  In  my  humble  opinion  this  surrenders  the  point.  To 
resist  the  effect  of  this  admission,  however,  the  learned  judges  add 
— "  But  how  a  privilege  can  be  protected  from  the  operation  of  the 
law  of  the  land  by  a  clause  in  the  constitution,  declaring  that  it  shall 
not  be  taken  away,  but  by  the  law  of  the  land,  is  not  very  easily 
understood." — This  answer  goes  on  the  ground,  that  the  acts  in 
question  are  laws  of  the  land,  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution. 
If  they  be  so,  the  argument  drawn  from  this  article  is  fully  answer- 
ed. If  they  be  not  so,  it  being  admitted  that  the  plaintiffs'  rights 
are  "privileges"  within  the  meaning  of  the  article,  the  argument  is 
not  answered,  and  the  article  is  infringed  by  the  acts.  Are  then 
these  acts  of  the  legislature,  which  affect  only  particular  persons 
and  their  particular  privileges,  laws  of  the  land?  Let  this  question 
be  answered  by  the  text  of  Blackstone.  "  And  first  it  (i.  e.  law)  is 
a  rule:  not  a  transient  sudden  order  from  a  superior  to  or  concern- 
ing a  particular  person;  but  something  permanent,  uniform,  and 
universal.  Therefore  a  particular  act  of  the  legislature  to  confis- 
cate the  goods  of  Titius,  or  to  attaint  him  of  high  treason,  does  not 


128 

enter  into  the  idea  of  a  municipal  law:  for  the  operation  of  this  act 
is  spent  upon  Titius  only,  and  has  no  relation  to  the  community  in 
general;  it  is  rather  a  sentence  than  a  law."*  Lord  Coke  is  equally 
decisive  and  emphatic.  Citing  and  commenting  on  the  celebrated 
29th  chap,  of  Magna  Charta,  he  says,  u  no  man  shall  be  disseized, 
&c.  unless  it  be  by  the  lawful  judgment,  that  is,  verdict  of  equals, 
or  by  the  law  of  the  land,  that  is,  (to  speak  it  once  for  all,)  by  the 
due  course  and  process  of  law."\  Have  the  plaintiffs  lost  their  fran- 
chises by  "  due  course  and  process  of  law?  "  On  the  contrary,  are 
not  these  acts,  "  particular  acts  of  the  legislature,  which  have  no 
relation  to  the  community  in  general,  and  which  are  rather  senten- 
ces than  laws  ?" 

By  the  law  of  the  land,  is  most  clearly  intended,  the  general  law; 
a  law,  which  hears  before  it  condemns;  which  proceeds  upon  inquiry, 
and  renders  judgment  only  after  trial.  The  meaning  is,  that  every 
citizen  shall  hold  his  life,  liberty,  property,  and  immunities  under 
the  protection  of  the  general  rules  which  govern  society.  Every- 
thing which  may  pass  under  the  form  of  an  enactment,  is  not  there- 
fore to  be  considered  the  law  of  the  land.  If  this  were  so,  acts  of 
attainder,  bills  of  pains  and  penalties,  acts  of  confiscation,  acts  re- 
versing judgments,  and  acts  directly  transferring  one  man's  estate 
to  another,  legislative  judgments,  decrees,  and  forfeitures  in  all  pos- 
sible forms,  would  be  the  law  of  the  land. 

Such  a  strange  construction  would  render  constitutional  provisions 
of  the  highest  importance  completely  inoperative  and  void.  It 
would  tend  directly  to  establish  the  union  of  all  powers  in  the  legis- 
lature. There  would  be  no  general  permanent  law  for  courts  to  ad- 
minister, or  for  men  to  live  under.  The  administration  of  justice 
would  be  an  empty  form,  an  idle  ceremony.  Judges  would  sit  to 
execute  legislative  judgments  and  decrees;  not  to  declare  the  law  or 
to  administer  the  justice  of  the  country.  "  Is  that  the  law  of  the 
land,"  said  Mr.  Burke,  "  upon  which,  if  a  man  go  to  Westminster 
Hall,  and  ask  counsel  by  what  title  or  tenure  he  holds  his  privilege 
or  estate  according  to  the  law  of  the  land,  he  should  be  told,  that  the 
law  of  the  land  is  not  yet  known;  that  no  decision  or  decree  has 
been  made  in  his  case;  that  when  a  decree  shall  be  passed,  he  will 
then  know  what  the  laiv  of  the  land  is?  Will  this  fre  said  to  be  the 
law  of  the  land,  by  any  lawyer  who  has  a  rag  of  a  gown  left  upon 
his  back,  or  a  wig  with  one  tie  upon  his  head?" 

That  the  power  of  electing  and  appointing  the  officers  of  this  col- 
lege, is  not  only  a  right  of  the  trustees  as  a  corporation,  generally, 
and  in  the  aggregate,  but  that  each  individual  trustee  has  also  his  own 
individual  franchise  in  such  right  of  election  and  appointment,  is  accord- 
ing to  the  language  of  all  the  authorities.  Lord  Holt  says,  "  it  is 
agreeable  to  reason  and  the  rules  of  law,  that  a  franchise  should  be 
vested  in  the  corporation  aggregate,  and  yet  the  benefit  of  it  to  re- 
dound to  the  particular  members,  and  to  be  enjoyed  by  them  in  their 
private  capacity.  Where  the  privilege  of  election  is  used  by  par- 
ticular persons,  it  is  a  particular  right,  vested  in  every  particular  ??ian."J 

It  is  also  to  be  considered,  that  the  president  and  professors  of 
this  college  have  rights  to  be  affected  by  these  acts.     Their  interest 

*  1  Black.  Com.  44.  t  Coke  2  In.  46.  %  2  Lord  Ray.  952. 


129 

is  similar  to  that  of  fellows  in  the  English  colleges;  because  they 
derive  their  living,  wholly  or  in  part,  from  the  founder's  bounty. 
The  president  is  one  of  the  trustees,  or  corporators.  The  profes- 
sors are  not  necessarily  members  of  the  corporation;  but  they  are 
appointed  by  the  trustees,  are  removable  only  by  them,  and  have 
fixed  salaries  payable  out  of  the  general  funds  of  the  college. — Both 
president  and  professors  have  freeholds  in  their  offices;  subject  only 
to  be  removed,  by  the  trustees,  as  their  legal  visitors,  for  good  cause. 
All  the  authorities  speak  of  fellowships  in  colleges  as  freeholds,  not- 
withstanding the  fellows  may  be  liable  to  be  suspended  or  removed, 
for  misbehavior,  by  their  constituted  visitors. 

Nothing  could  have  been  less  expected,  in  this  age,  than  that 
there  should  have  been  an  attempt,  by  acts  of  the  legislature,  to 
take  away  these  college  livings,  the  inadequate,  but  the  only  support 
of  literary  men,  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  the  instruction  of 
youth.  The  president  and  professors  were  appointed  by  the  twelve 
trustees. — They  were  accountable  to  nobody  else  and  could  be  re- 
moved by  nobody  else.  They  accepted  their  offices  on  this  tenure. 
Yet  the  legislature  has  appointed  other  persons,  with  power  to  re- 
move these  officers,  and  to  deprive  them  of  their  livings;  and  those 
other  persons  have  exercised  that  power.  No  description  of  private 
property  has  been  regarded  as  more  sacred  than  college  livings. 
They  are  the  estates  and  freeholds  of  a  most  deserving  class  of 
men;  of  scholars,  who  have  consented  to  forego  the  advantages  of 
professional  and  public  employments,  and  to  devote  themselves  to 
science  and  literature,  and  the  instruction  of  youth,  in  the  quiet  re- 
treats of  academic  life. — Whether  to  dispossess  and  oust  them;  to 
deprive  them  of  their  office,  and  to  turn  them  out  of  their  livings; 
to  do  this  not  by  the  power  of  their  legal  visitors,  or  governors,  but 
by  acts  of  the  legislature;  and  to  do  it  without  forfeiture,  and  with- 
out fault;  whether  all  this  be  not  in  the  highest  degree  an  indefen- 
sible and  arbitrary  proceeding,  is  a  question,  of  which  there  would 
seem  to  be  but  one  side  fit  for  a  lawyer  or  a  scholar  to  espouse. 

Of  all  the  attempts  of  James  II.  to  overturn  the  law,  and  the  rights 
of  his  subjects,  none  was  esteemed  more  arbitrary  or  tyrannical,  than 
his  attack  on  Magdalen  College,  Oxford :  And,  yet,  that  attempt  was 
nothing  but  to  put  out  one  president  and  put  in  another.  The  presi- 
dent of  that  college,  according  to  the  charter  and  statutes,  is  to  be 
chosen  by  the  fellows,  who  are  the  corporators.  There  being  a  va- 
cancy, the  king  chose  to  take  the  appointment  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  fellows,  the  legal  electors  of  a  president,  into  his  own  hands. 
He  therefore  sent  down  his  mandate  commanding  the  fellows  to  ad- 
mit, for  president,  a  person  of  his  nomination;  and  inasmuch  as  this 
was  directly  against  the  charter  and  constitution  of  the  college,  he 
was  pleased  to  add  a  non  obstante  clause  of  sufficiently  comprehensive 
import.  The  fellows  were  commanded  to  admit  the  person  men- 
tioned in  the  mandate,  "  any  statute,  custom  or  constitution  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding,  wherewith  we  are  graciously  pleased  to  dispense, 
in  this  behalf."  The  fellows  refused  obedience  to  this  mandate,  and 
Dr.  Hough,  a  man  of  independence  and  character,  was  chosen 
president  by  the  fellows,  according  to  the  charter  and  statutes.  The 
king  then  assumed  the  power,  in  virtue  of  his  prerogative,  to  send 
17 


130 

down  certain  commissioners  to  turn  him  out;  which  was  done  accord- 
ingly; and  Parker,  a  creature  suited  to  the  times,  put  in  his  place. 
And  because  the  president,  who  was  rightfully  and  legally  elected, 
would  not  deliver  the  keys,  the  doors  were  broken  open.  "  The  nation 
as  well  as  the  University,"  says  Bishop  Burnet,  [Hist,  of  his  own 
times,  Vol.  3.  p.  119.]  "looked  on  all  these  proceedings  with  just 
indignation.  It  was  thought  an  open  piece  of  robbery  and  burglary, 
when  men  authorised  by  no  legal  commission,  came  and  forcibly  turned 
men  out  of  their  possession  and  freehold."  Mr.  Hume,  although  a 
man  of  different  temper,  and  of  other  sentiments,  in  some  respects, 
than  Dr.  Burnet,  speaks  of  this  arbitrary  attempt  of  prerogative,  in 
terms  not  less  decisive.  "  The  president,  and  all  the  fellows,"  says 
he,  "  except  two,  who  complied,  were  expelled  the  college;  and  Par- 
ker was  put  in  possession  of  the  office.  This  act  of  violence  of  all 
those  which  were  committed  during  the  reign  of  James,  is  perhaps 
the  most  illegal  and  arbitrary.  When  the  dispensing  power  was 
the  most  strenuously  insisted  on  by  court  lawyers,  it  had  still  been 
allowed,  that  the  statutes  which  regard  private  property,  could  not 
legally  be  infringed  by  that  prerogative.  Yet,  in  this  instance,  it 
appeared  that  even  these  were  not  now  secure  from  invasion.  The 
privileges  of  a  college  are  attacked;  men  are  illegally  dispossessed 
of  their  property  for  adhering  to  their  duty,  to  their  oaths,  and  to 
their  religion." 

This  measure  king  James  lived  to  repent,  after  repentance  was 
too  late.  When  the  charter  of  London  was  restored  and  other 
measures  of  violence  retracted,  to  avert  the  impending  revolution, 
the  expelled  president  and  fellows  of  Magdalen  College  were  per 
mitted  to  resume  their  rights.  It  is  evident  that  this  was  regarded 
as  an  arbitrary  interference  with  private  property.  Yet  private  pro- 
perty was  no  otherwise  attacked,  than  as  a  person  was  appointed  to 
administer  and  enjoy  the  revenues  of  a  college,  in  a  manner  and  by 
persons  not  authorised  by  the  constitution  of  the  college.  A  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  corporation  would  not  comply  with  the  king's 
wishes.  A  minority  would.  The  object  was,  therefore,  to  make 
this  minority  a  majority.  To  this  end  the  king's  commissioners 
were  directed  to  interfere  in  the  case,  and  they  united  with  the  two 
complying felloivs,  and  expelled  the  rest;  and  thus  effected  a  change 
in  the  government  of  the  college.  The  language  in  which  Mr. 
Hume,  and  all  other  writers,  speak  of  this  abortive  attempt  of  op- 
pression, shows  that  colleges  were  esteemed  to  be,  as  they  truly  are 
private  corporations,  and  the  property  and  privileges  which  belong 
to  them,  private  property  and  private  privileges.  Court  lawyers 
were  found  to  justify  the  king  in  dispensing  with  the  laws;  that  is, 
in  assuming  and  exercising  a  legislative  authority.  But  no  lawyer, 
not  even  a  court  lawyer,  in  the  reign  of  king  James  the  second,  as 
far  as  appears,  was  found  to  say  that  even  by  this  high  authority,  he 
could  infringe  the  franchises  of  the  fellows  of  a  college  and  take  away 
their  livings.  Mr.  Hume  gives  the  reason;  it  is  that  such  franchises 
were  regarded,  in  a  most  emphatic  sense,  as  private  property* 

If  it  could  be  made  to  appear,  that  the  trustees  and  the  president 
and  professors  held  their  offices  and  franchises  during  the  pleasure 

*  Vide  a  full  account  of  this  case  in  state  trials,  4  Edn.  4  Vol.  page  262. 


131 

of  the  legislature,  and  that  the  property  holden  belonged  to  the 
state,  then  indeed  the  legislature  have  done  no  more  than  they  had 
a  right  to  do.  But  this  is  not  so.  The  charter  is  a  charter  of  privi- 
leges and  immunities;  and  these  are  holden  by  the  trustees  expressly 
against  the  state  forever. 

It  is  admitted,  that  the  state,  by  its  courts  of  law,  can  enforce  the 
will  of  the  donor,  and  compel  a  faithful  execution  of  the  trust.  The 
plaintiffs  claim  no  exemption  from  legal  responsibility.  They  hold 
themselves  at  all  times  answerable  to  the  law  of  the  land,  for  their 
conduct  in  the  trust  committed  to  them.  They  ask  only  to  hold  the 
property  of  which  they  are  owners,  and  the  franchises,  which  belong 
to  them,  until  they  shall  be  found  by  due  course  and  process  of  law, 
to  have  forfeited  them. 

It  can  make  no  difference,  whether  the  legislature  exercise  the 
power  it  has  assumed,  by  removing  the  trustees  and  the  president 
and  professors,  directly  and  by  name,  or  by  appointing  others  to 
expel  them.  The  principle  is  the  same,  and  in  point  of  fact,  the 
result  has  been  the  same.  If  the  entire  franchise  cannot  be  taken 
away,  neither  can  it  be  essentially  impaired.  If  the  trustees  are 
legal  owners  of  the  property,  they  are  sole  owners.  If  they  are 
visitors,  they  are  sole  visitors.  No  one  will  be  found  to  say,  that  if 
the  legislature  may  do  what  it  has  done,  it  may  not  do  anything 
and  everything,  which  it  may  choose  to  do,  relative  to  the  property 
of  the  corporation,  and  the  privileges  of  its  members  and  officers. 

If  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  this  question  be  at  all  cor- 
rect, this  was  an  eleemosynary  corporation;  a  private  charity.  The 
property  was  private  property.  The  trustees  were  visitors,  and 
their  right  to  hold  the  charter,  administer  the  funds,  and  visit  and 
govern  the  college  was  a  franchise  and  privilege,  solemnly  granted 
to  them.  The  use  being  public,  in  no  way  diminishes  their  legal 
estate  in  the  property,  or  their  title  to  the  franchise.  There  is  no 
principle,  nor  any  case,  which  declares  that  a  gift  to  such  a  corpo- 
ration, is  a  gift  to  the  public.  The  acts  in  question  violate  property. 
They  take  away  privileges,  immunities,  and  franchises.  They  deny 
to  the  trustees  the  protection  of  the  law;  and  they  are  retrospective 
in  their  operation.  In  all  which  respects  they  are  against  the  con- 
stitution of  New  Hampshire. 

The  plaintiffs  contend,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  acts  in  ques- 
tion are  repugnant  to  the  10th  section  of  the  1st  article  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  The  material  words  of  that  section 
are;  "  no  state  shall  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or 
law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts." 

The  object  of  these  most  important  provisions  in  the  national 
constitution  has  often  been  discussed,  both  here  and  elsewhere.  It 
is  exhibited  with  great  clearness  and  force  by  one  of  the  distin- 
guished persons  who  framed  that  instrument.  "  Bills  of  attainder, 
ex  post  facto  laws,  and  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts, 
are  contrary  to  the  first  principles  of  the  social  compact,  and  to 
every  principle  of  sound  legislation.  The  two  former,  are  expressly 
prohibited  by  the  declarations  prefixed  to  some  of  the  state  consti- 
tutions, and  all  of  them  are  prohibited  by  the  spirit  and  scope  of 


132 

these  fundamental  charters.  Our  own  experience  has  taught  us, 
nevertheless,  that  additional  fences  against  these  dangers,  ought 
not  to  be  omitted.  Very  properly,  therefore,  have  the  convention 
added  this  constitutional  bulwark  in  favor  of  personal  security  and 
private  rights;  and  I  am  much  deceived,  if  they  have  not,  in  so  do- 
ing, as  faithfully  consulted  the  genuine  sentiments,  as  the  undoubt- 
ed interests  of  their  constituents.  The  sober  people  of  America, 
are  weary  of  the  fluctuating  policy  which  has  directed  the  public 
councils.  They  have  seen  with  regret,  and  with  indignation,  that 
sudden  changes,  and  legislative  interferences  in  cases  affecting  per- 
sonal rights,  become  jobs  in  the  hands  of  enterprising  and  influential 
speculators;  and  snares  to  the  more  industrious  and  less  informed 
part  of  the  community.  They  have  seen,  too,  that  one  legislative 
interference  is  but  the  link  of  a  long  chain  of  repetitions;  every 
subsequent  interference  being  naturally  produced  by  the  effects  of 
the  preceding."* 

It  has  already  been  decided  in  this  court,  that  a  grant  is  a  contract, 
within  the  meaning  of  this  provision;  and  that  a  grant  by  a  state,  is 
also  a  contract,  as  much  as  the  grant  of  an  individual.  In  Fletcher 
vs.  Peckf  this  court  says,  u  a  contract  is  a  compact  between  two  or 
more  parties,  and  is  either  executory  or  executed.  An  executory 
contract  is  one  in  which  a  party  binds  himself  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  a 
particular  thing;  such  was  the  law  under  which  the  conveyance  was 
made  by  the  government.  A  contract  executed  is  one  in  which  the 
object  of  contract  is  performed;  and  this,  says  Blackstone  differs  in 
nothing  from  a  grant.  The  contract  between  Georgia  and  the  pur- 
chasers was  executed  by  the  grant.  A  contract  executed,  as  well 
as  one  which  is  executory,  contains  obligations  binding  on  the  par- 
ties. A  grant,  in  its  own  nature,  amounts  to  an  extinguishment  of 
the  right  of  the  grantor,  and  implies  a  contract  not  to  reassert  that 
right.  If  under  a  fair  construction  of  the  constitution,  grants  are 
comprehended  under  the  term  contracts,  is  a  grant  from  the  state 
excluded  from  the  operation  of  the  provision?  Is  the  clause  to  be 
considered  as  inhibiting  the  state  from  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts  between  two  individuals,  but  as  excluding  from  that  inhibi- 
tion contracts  made  with  itself?  The  words  themselves  contain  no 
such  distinction.  They  are  general,  and  are  applicable  to  contracts 
of  every  description.  If  contracts  made  with  the  state  are  to  be 
exempted  from  their  operation,  the  exception  must  arise  from  the 
character  of  the  contracting  party,  not  from  the  words  which  are 
employed.  Whatever  respect  might  have  been  felt  for  the  state 
sovereignties,  it  is  not  to  be  disguised,  that  the  framers  of  the  consti- 
tution viewed,  with  some  apprehension,  the  violent  acts  which  might 
grow  out  of  the  feelings  of  the  moment;  and  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  adopting  that  instrument,  have  manifested  a  deter- 
mination to  shield  themselves,  and  their  property,  from  the  effects  of 
those  sudden  and  strong  passions  to  which  men  are  exposed.  The  re- 
strictions on  the  legislative  power  of  the  states,  are  obviously  founded 
in  this  sentiment;  and  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  contains 
what  may  be  deemed  a  bill  of  rights,  for  the  people  of  each  state  " 
*  44th  No.  of  the  Fed.  by  Mr.  Madison.  f  6  Cranch  87 


133 

It  has  also  been  decided,  that  a  grant  by  a  state  before  the  revolu- 
tion, is  as  much  to  be  protected  as  a  grant  since.*  But  the  case  of 
Terrett  vs.  Taylor,  before  cited,  is  of  all  others  most  pertinent  to 
the  present  argument.  Indeed  the  judgment  of  the  court  in  that 
ease  sterns  to  leave  little  to  be  argued  or  decided  in  this.  "  A  pri- 
vate corporation,"  say  the  court,  "  created  by  the  legislature,  may 
lose  its  franchises  by  a  misuser  or  a  nonuser  of  them-,  and  they  may 
be  resumed  by  the  government  under  a  judicial  judgment  upon  a  quo 
warranto  to  ascertain  and  enforce  the  forfeiture.  This  is  the  com- 
mon law  of  the  land,  and  is  a  tacit  condition  annexed  to  the  cre- 
ation of  every  such  corporation.  Upon  a  change  of  government, 
too,  it  may  be  admitted  that  such  exclusive  privileges  attached  to  a 
private  corporation  as  are  inconsistent  with  the  new  government, 
may  be  abolished.  In  respect,  also,  to  public  corporations  which 
exist  only  for  public  purposes,  such  as  counties,  towns,  cities,  &c. 
the  legislature  may,  under  proper  limitations,  have  a  right  to  change, 
modify,  enlarge  or  restrain  them,  securing,  however,  the  property 
for  the  uses  of  those  for  whom  and  at  whose  expense  it  was  origin- 
ally purchased.  But  that  the  legislature  can  repeal  statute's  creat- 
ing private  corporations,  or  confirming  to  them  property  already  ac- 
quired under  the  faith  of  previous  laws,  and  by  such  repeal  can  vest 
the  property  of  such  corporations  exclusively  in  the  state,  or  dispose 
of  the  same  to  such  purposes  as  they  please,  without  the  consent 
or  default  of  the  corporators,  we  are  not  prepared  to  admit;  and  we 
think  ourselves  standing  upon  the  principles  of  natural  justice,  upon 
the  fundamental  laws  of  every  free  government,  upon  the  spirit  and 
letter  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  upon  the  de- 
cisions of  most  respectable  judioial  tribunals,  in  resisting  such  a 
doctrine."         * 

This  court,  then,  does  not  admit  the  doctrine,  that  a  legislature 
can  repeal  statutes  creating  private  corporations.  If  it  cannot  re- 
peal them  altogether,  of  course  it  cannot  repeal  any  part  of  them, 
or  impair  them,  or  essentially  alter  them  without  the  consent  of 
the  corporators.  If,  therefore,  it  has  been  shown  that  this  college 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  private  charity,  this  case  is  embraced  within 
the  very  terms  of  that  decision.  A  grant  of  coporate  powers  and 
privileges  is  as  much  a  contract  as  a  grant  of  land.  What  proves  all 
charters  of  this  sort  to  be  contracts,  is,  that  they  must  be  accepted 
to  give  them  force  and  effect.  If  they  are  not  accepted  they  are 
void.  And  in  the  case  of  an  existing  corporation,  if  a  new  charter 
is  given  it,  it  may  even  accept  part  and.reject  the  rest.  In  Rex  vs. 
vice  chancellor  of  Cambridge,!  lord  Mansfield  says,  "there  is  a 
vast  deal  of  difference  between  a  new  charter  granted  to  a  new  cor- 
poration (who  must  take  it  as  it  is  given;)  and  a  new  charter  given 
to-a  corporation  already  in  being,  and  acting  either  under  a  former 
charter,  or  under  prescriptive  usage.  The  latter,  a  corporation 
already  existing,  are  not  obliged  to  accept  the  new  charter  in  tolo, 
and  to  receive  either  all  or  none  of  it :  they  may  act  partly  under  it, 
and  partly  under  their  old  charter  or  prescription.  The  validity  of 
these  new  charters  must  turn  upon  the  acceptance  of  them."  In 
the  same  case  Mr.  Justice  Wilmot  says,  "  It  is  the  concurrence  and 

*  New  Jersey  vs.  Wilson.  7  Cranch  164.  f  3  Burr.  1656. 

M 


134 

acceptance  of  the  university  that  gives  the  force  to  the  charter  of  the 
crown."  In  the  King  vs.  Passmore,*  lord  Kenyon  observes:  "  some 
things  are  clear;  when  a  corporation  exists  capable  of  discharging 
its  functions,  the  crown  cannot  obtrude  another  charter  upon  them; 
they  may  either  accept  or  reject  it."| 

In  all  cases  relative  to  charters,  the  acceptance  of  them  is  uniform- 
ly alleged  in  the  pleadings.  This  shows  the  general  understanding 
of  the  law,  that  they  are  grants,  or  contracts;  and  that  parties  are 
necessary  to  give  them  force  and  validity.  In  King  vs.  Dr.  Askew,J 
it  is  said;  "  The  crown  cannot  oblige  a  man  to  be  a  coporator,  with- 
out his  consent:  he  shall  not  be  subject  to  the  inconveniences  of  it, 
without  accepting  it  and  assenting  to  it."  These  terms,  "  acceptance" 
and  "  assent,"  are  the  very  language  of  contract.  In  Ellis  vs.  Mar- 
shall^  it  was  expressly  adjudged  that  the  naming  of  the  defendant 
among  others,  in  an  act  of  incorporation,  did  not  of  itself  make  him 
a  corporator;  and  that  his  assent  was  necessary  to  that  end.  The 
court  speak  of  the  act  of  incorporation  as  a  grant,  and  observe; 
"  that  a  man  may  refuse  a  grant,  whether  from  the  government  or 
an  individual,  seems  to  be  a  principle  too  clear,  to  require  the  sup- 
port of  authorities."  But  Justice  Buller,  in  King  vs.  Passmore, 
furnishes,  if  possible,  a  still  more  direct  and  explicit  authority. 
Speaking  of  a  corporation  for  government,  he  says:  "  I  do  not  know 
how  to  reason  on  this  point  better  than  in  the  manner  urged  by  one 
of  the  relator's  counsel;  who  considered  the  grant  of  incorporation 
to  be  a  compact  between  the  crown  and  a  certain  number  of  the 
subjects,  the  latter  of  whom  undertake,  in  consideration  of  the 
privileges  which  are  bestowed,  to  exert  themselves  for  the  good 
government  of  the  place."  This  language  applies,  with  peculiar 
propriety  and  force  to  the  case  before  the  court.  It  was  in  conse- 
quence of  the  "  privileges  bestowed,"  that  Dr.  Wheelock  and  his 
associates  undertook  to  exert  themselves  for  the  instruction  and 
education  of  youth  in  this  college;  and  it  was  on  the  same  consid- 
eration that  the  founder  endowed  it  with  his  property. 

And  because  charters  of  incorporation  are  of  the  nature  of  con- 
tracts, they  cannot  be  altered  or  varied  but  by  consent  of  the  origi- 
nal parties.  If  a  charter  be  granted  by  the  king,  it  may  be  altered 
by  a  new  charter  granted  by  the  king,  and  accepted  by  the  corpora- 
tors. But  if  the  first  charter  be  granted  by  parliament,  the  consent 
of  parliament  must  be  obtained  to  any  alteration.  In  King  vs.  Mil- 
ler, ||  lord  Kenyon  says;  "Where  a  corporation  takes  its  rise  from 
the  king's  charter,  the  king  by  granting,  and  the  corporation  by  ac- 
cepting another  charter,  may  alter  it,  because  it  is  done  with  the 
consent  of  all  the  parties  who  are  competent  to  consent  to  the 
alteration.  "IT 

There  are,  in  this  case,  all  the  essential  constituent  parts  of  a 
contract.  There  is  something  to  be  contracted  about,  there  are 
parties,  and  there  are  plain  terms  in  which  the  agreement  of  the 
parties,  on  the  subject  of  the  contract,  is  expressed.  There  are 
mutual  considerations  and  inducements.  The  charter  recites,  that 
the  founder,  on  his  part,  has  agreed  to  establish  his  seminary,  in 

*  3  Term  Rep.  240.     f  Vide  also  1  Kyd  on  Cor.  65.     %  4  Burr,  2200.     §2  Mass.  Rep.  269. 
||  6  Term  Rep.  277.  IT  Vide  also  2  Brown,  Ch.  Rep.  662.  Ex  parte,  Bolton  school. 


135 

New  Hampshire,  and  to  enlarge  it,  beyond  its  original  design,  among 
other  things,  for  the  benefit  of  that  province:  and  thereupon  a  char- 
ter is  given  to  him,  and  his  associates  designated  by  himself,  prom- 
ising and  assuring  to  them  under  the  plighted  faith  of  the  state,  the 
right  of  governing  the  college,  and  administering  its  concerns  in  the 
manner  provided  in  the  charter.  There  is  a  complete  and  perfect 
grant  to  them  of  all  the  power  of  superintendence,  visitation,  and 
government.  Is  not  this  a  contract?  If  lands  or  money  had  been 
granted  to  him  and  his  associates,  for  the  same  purposes,  such  grant 
could  not  be  rescinded.  And  is  there  any  difference  in  legal  con- 
templation, between  a  grant  of  corporate  franchises,  and  a  grant  of 
tangible  property  ?  No  such  difference  is  recognised  in  any  decided 
case,  nor  does  it  exist  in  the  common  apprehension  of  mankind. 

It  is  therefore  contended,  that  this  case  falls  within  the  true  meaning 
of  this  provision  of  the  constitution^  as  expounded  in  the  decisions 
of  this  court;  that  the  charter  of  1769,  is  a  contract,  a  stipulation  or 
agreement;  mutual  in  its  considerations,  express  and  formal  in  its 
terms,  and  of  a  most  binding  and  solemn  nature.  That  the  acts  in 
question  impair  this  contract,  has  already  been  sufficiently  shown. 
They  repeal  and  abrogate  its  most  essential  parts. 

A  single  observation  may  not  be  improper  on  the  opinion  of  the 
court  of  New  Hampshire,  which  has  been  published.  The  learned 
judges,  who  delivered  that  opinion,  have  viewed  this  question  in  a 
very  different  light,  from  that  in  which  the  plaintiffs  have  endeavour- 
ed to  exhibit  it.  After  some  general  remarks,  they  assume  that  this 
college  is  a  public  corporation;  and  on  this  basis  their  judgment 
rests.  Whether  all  colleges  are  not  regarded  as  private,  and  elee- 
mosynary corporations,  by  all  law  writers,  and  all  judicial  decisions; 
whether  this  college  was  not  founded  by  Dr.  Wheelock;  whether  the 
charter  was  not  granted  at  his  request,  the  better  to  execute  a  trust, 
which  he  had  already  created;  whether  he  and  his  associates  did  not 
become  visitors,  by  the  charter;  and  whether  Dartmouth  College 
be  not,  therefore,  in  the  strictest  sense,  a  private  charity,  are  ques- 
tions which  the  learned  judges  do  not  appear  to  have  discussed. 

It  is  admitted  in  that  opinion,  that  if  it  be  a  private  corporation, 
its  rights  stand  on  the  same  ground  as  those  of  an  individual.  The 
great  question,  therefore,  to  be  decided,  is,  to  which  class  of  corpo- 
rations do  colleges  thus  founded  belong?  And  the  plaintiffs  have 
endeavoured  to  satisfy  the  court,  that  according  to  the  well  settled 
principles,  and  uniform  decisions  of  law,  they  are  private  eleemosy- 
nary corporations. 

Much  has  heretofore  been  said  on  the  necessity  of  admitting  such 
a  power  in  the  legislature  as  has  been  assumed  in  this  case.  Many 
cases  of  possible  evil  have  been  imagined,  which  might  otherwise  be 
without  remedy.  Abuses,  it  is  contended,  might  arise  in  the  man- 
agement of  such  institutions,  which  the  ordinary  courts  of  law  would 
be  unable  to  correct.  But  this  is  only  another  instance  of  that 
habit  of  supposing  extreme  cases,  and  then  of  reasoning  from  them, 
which  is  the  constant  refuge  of  those  who  are  obliged  to  defend  a 
cause,  which,  upon  its  merits,  is  indefensible.  It  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  say,  in  answer,  that  it  is  not  pretended,  that  there  was  here 
any  such  case  of  necessity.     But  a  still  more  satisfactory  answer,  is, 


136 

that  the  apprehension  of  danger  is  groundless,  and  therefore  the 
whole  argument  fails.  Experience  has  not  taught  us  that  there  is 
danger  of  great  evils  or  of  great  inconvenience  from  this  source. 
Hitherto,  neither  in  our  own  country  nor  elsewhere,  have  such 
cases  of  necessity  occurred.  The  judicial  establishments  of  the 
state  are  presumed  to  be  competent  to  prevent  abuses  and  violations 
of  trust,  in  cases  of  this  kind,  as  well  as  in  all  others.  If  they  be 
not,  they  are  imperfect,  and  their  amendment  would  be  a  most  proper 
subject  for  legislative  wisdom.  Under  the  government  and  protec- 
tion of  the  general  laws  of  the  land,  these  institutions  have  always 
been  found  safe,  as  well  as  useful.  They  go  on,  with  the  progress 
of  society,  accommodating  themselves  easily,  without  sudden  change 
or  violence,  to  the  alterations  which  take  place  in  its  condition;  and 
in  the  knowledge,  the  habits,  and  pursuits  of  men.  The  English 
colleges  were  founded  in  Catholic  ages.  Their  religion  was  reformed 
with  the  general  reformation  of  the  nation;  and  they  are  suited  per- 
fectly well  to  the  purpose  of  educating  the  protestant  youth  of  mod- 
ern times.  Dartmouth  college  was  established  under  a  charter 
granted  by  the  provincial  government;  but  a  better  constitution  for 
a  college,  or  one  more  adapted  to  the  condition  of  things  under 
the  present  government,  in  all  material  respects,  could  not  now  be 
framed.  Nothing  in  it  was  found  to  need  alteration  at  the  revolution. 
The  wise  men  of  that  day  saw  in  it  one  of  the  best  hopes  of  future 
times,  and  commended  it,  as  it  was,  with  parental  care,  to  the  pro- 
tection and  guardianship  of  the  government  of  the  state.  A  charter 
of  more  liberal  sentiments,  of  wiser  provisions,  drawn  with  more 
care,  or  in  a  better  spirit,  could  not  be  expected  at  any  time  or  from 
any  source.  The  college  needed  no  change  in  its  organization  or 
government.  That  which  it  did  need  was  the  kindness,  the  patron- 
age, the  bounty  of  the  legislature;  not  a  mock  elevation  to  the  char- 
acter of  a  university,  without  the  solid  benefit  of  a  shilling's  donation 
to  sustain  the  character;  not  the  swelling  and  empty  authority 
of  establishing  institutes  and  other  colleges.  This  unsubstantial 
pageantry  would  seem  to  have  been  in  derision  of  the  scanty  en- 
dowment and  limited  means  of  an  unobtrusive  but  useful  and  grow- 
ing seminary.  Least  of  all  was  there  a  necessity,  or  pretence  of 
necessity,  to  infringe  its  legal  rights,  violate  its  franchises  and  privi- 
leges, and  pour  upon  it  these  overwhelming  streams  of  litigation. 

But  this  argument  from  necessity,  would  equally  apply  in  all  other 
cases. — If  it  be  well  founded,  it  would  prove,  that  whenever  any  in- 
convenience or  evil  should  be  experienced  from  the  restrictions  im- 
posed on  the  legislature  by  the  constitution,  these  restrictions  ought 
to  be  disregarded.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  the  people  have  thought 
otherwise. — They  have,  most  wisely,  chosen  to  take  the  risk,  of  oc- 
casional inconvenience  from  the  want  of  power,  in  order  that  there 
might  be  a  settled  limit  to  its  exercise,  and  a  permanent  security 
against  its  abuse.  They  have  imposed  prohibitions  and  restraints; 
and  they  have  not  rendered  these  altogether  vain  and  nugatory  by 
conferring  the  power  of  dispensation.  If  inconvenience  should  arise, 
which  the  legislature  cannot  remedy  under  the  power  conferred  upon 
it,  it  is  not  answerable  for  such  inconvenience.  That  which  it  can- 
not do,  within  the  limits  prescribed  to  it,  it  cannot  do  at  all.     No 


137 

legislature  in  this  country  is  able,  and  may  the  time  never  come 
when  it  shall  be  able,  to  apply  to  itself  the  memorable  expression  of 
a  Roman  pontiff;  "  Licet  hoc  de  jure  non  possumus,  volumus  tamen 

DE    PLENITUDINE  POTESTAT1S." 

The  case  before  the  court  is  not  of  ordinary  importance,  nor  of 
every  day  occurrence.  It  affects  not  this  college  only,  but  every 
college,  and  all  the  literary  institutions  of  the  country.  They  have 
flourished,  hitherto,  and  have  become  in  a  high  degree  respectable 
and  useful  to  the  community.  They  have  all  a  common  principle  of 
existence,  the  inviolability  of  their  charters.  It  will  be  a  danger- 
ous, a  most  dangerous  experiment,  to  hold  these  institutions  subject 
to  the  rise  and  fall  of  popular  parties,  and  the  fluctuations  of  politi- 
cal opinions.  If  the  franchise  may  be  at  any  time  taken  away,  or 
impaired,  the  property  also  may  be  taken  away,  or  its  use  perverted. 
Benefactors  will  have  no  certainty  of  effecting  the  object  of  their 
bounty;  and  learned  men  will  be  deterred  from  devoting  themselves 
to  the  service  of  such  institutions,  from  the  precarious  title  of  their 
offices.  Colleges  and  halls  will  be  deserted  by  all  better  spirits,  and 
become  a  theatre  for  the  contention  of  politics.  Party  and  faction 
will  be  cherished  in  the  places  consecrated  to  piety  and  learning. 
These  consequences  are  neither  remote  nor  possible  only.  They 
are  certain  and  immediate. 

When  the  court  in  North  Carolina  declared  the  law  of  the  state, 
which  repealed  a  grant  to  its  university,  unconstitutional  and  void, 
the  legislature  had  the  candor  and  the  wisdom  to  repeal  the  law. 
This  example,  so  honorable  to  the  state  which  exhibited  it,  is  most 
fit  to  be  followed  on  this  occasion.  And  there  is  good  reason  to 
hope,  that  a  state,  which  has  hitherto  been  so  much  distinguished 
for  temperate  councils,  cautious  legislation,  and  regard  to  law,  will 
not  fail  to  adopt  a  course,  which  will  accord  with  her  highest  and 
best  interest,  and  in  no  small  degree  elevate  her  reputation. 

It  was  for  many  and  obvious  reasons  most  anxiously  desired,  that 
the  question  of  the  power  of  the  legislature  over  this  charter  should 
have  been  finally  decided  in  the  state  court.  An  earnest  hope  was 
entertained  that  the  judges  of  that  court  might  have  viewed  the  case 
in  the  light  favorable  to  the  rights  of  the  trustees.  That  hope  has 
failed.  It  is  here,  that  those  rights  are  now  to  be  maintained,  or 
they  are  prostrated  forever.  Omnia  alia  perfugia  bonorum,  subsidia, 
consilia,  auxilia,  jura  cecidcrunt.  Quern  enim  alium  appelleml  quern 
obtester?  quern  imploreml  Nisi  hoc  loco,  nisi  apud  vos,  nisi  per  vos, 
judices,  salutem  nostram,  quae  spe  eocigua  extremaque  pendet,  tenuerimus; 
nihil  est  praterea  quo  confugere  possimus. 


18  M* 


ARGUMENT 


IN  THE  IMPEACHMENT  OF  JAMES  PRESCOTT,  BEFORE  THE  SENATE 
OF   MASSACHUSETTS.— 1821. 

A  Petition  having  been  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  praying  an  inquiry  into  the  official  conduct  of  James  Prescott,  Esquire, 
Judge  of  Probate  of  Wills,  &c.  for  the  County  of  Middlesex,  and  charging  him  with  miscon- 
duct and  maladministration  in  office ;  and  having  been  referred  to  a  committee,  who  re- 
ported a  statement  of  facts,  together  with  resolutions,  setting  forth  that  the  said  Prescott 
ought  to  be  impeached  therefor,  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate  of  the  Commonwealth — on  the 
2d  day  of  February,  1821,  an  order  was  passed  accordingly,  and  the  Senate  demanded  to 
take  measures  for  his  impeachment  and  appearance  to  answer  thereto.  A  committee  was 
thereupon  appointed  to  prepare  and  report  articles  of  impeachment.  And  John  Glen  King, 
Levi  Lincoln,  William  Baylies,  Warren  Dutton,  Samuel  P.  P.  Fay,  Lemuel  Shaw  and 
Sherman  Leland,  Esquires,  were  appointed  Managers.  Fifteen  Articles  of  Impeachment 
were  exhibited  and  read. 

The  Articles  substantially  charged  him  with  holding  Probate  Courts  for  transacting  busi- 
ness at  other  times  than  those  authorised  by  law,  demanding  and  taking  illegal  fees,  and 
acting  as  counsel  and  receiving  fees  as  such  in  cases  pending,  in  his  own  Court,  before  him, 
as  Judge. 

After  receiving  the  Respondent's  answer  to  the  Articles  of  Impeachment,  and  hearing 
the  evidence  in  support  of  and  against  the  same;  Messrs.  Leland,  Shaw  and  Dutton  argued 
the  case  in  behalf  of  the  Managers.  Mr.  Hoar  then  opened  the  argument,  on  the  part  of 
the  Respondent,  Mr.  Blake  followed,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Webster,  who  spoke  as 
follows : — 

Mr.  President, — I  agree  with  the  Hon.  Managers,  in  the  impor- 
tance which  they  have  attributed  to  this  proceeding.  They  have,  I 
think,  not  at  all  overrated  that  importance,  nor  ascribed  to  the  occa- 
sion, a  solemnity  which  does  not  belong  to  it.  Perhaps,  however,  I 
differ  from  them,  in  regard  to  the  causes  which  give  interest  and  im- 
portance to  this  trial,  and  to  the  parties  likely  to  be  most  lastingly 
and  deeply  affected  by  its  progress  and  result.  The  Respondent  has 
as  deep  a  stake,  no  doubt,  in  this  trial,  as  he  can  well  have  in  anything 
which  does  not  affect  life.  Regard  for  reputation,  love  of  honorable 
character,  affection  for  those  who  must  suffer  with  him,  if  he  suffers, 
and  who  will  feel  your  sentence  of  conviction,  if  you  should  pro- 
nounce one,  fall  on  their  own  heads,  as  it  falls  on  his,  cannot  but 
excite,  in  his  breast,  an  anxiety,  which  nothing  could  well  increase, 
and  nothing  but  a  consciousness  of  upright  intention  could  enable 
him  to  endure.  Yet,  sir,  a  few  years  will  carry  him  far  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  consequences  of  this  trial.  Those  same  years  will 
bear  away,  also,  in  their  rapid  flight,  those  who  prosecute  and  those 


139 

who  judge  him.  But  the  community  remains.  The  Commonwealth, 
we  trust,  will  be  perpetual.  She  is  yet  in  her  youth,  as  a  free  and 
independent  State,  and,  by  analogy  to  the  life  of  individuals,  may  be 
said  to  be  in  that  period  of  her  existence,  when  principles  of  action 
are  adopted,  and  character  is  formed.  The  Hon.  Respondent  will 
not  be  the  principal  sufferer,  if  he  should  here  fall  a  victim  to  charges 
of  undefined  and  undefinable  offences,  to  loose  notions  of  constitu- 
tional law,  or  novel  rules  of  evidence.  By  the  necessary  retribution 
of  things,  the  evil  of  such  a  course  would  fall  most  heavily  on  the 
State  which  should  pursue  it,  by  shaking  its  character  for  justice, 
and  impairing  its  principles  of  constitutional  liberty. — This,  sir,  is 
the  first  interesting  and  important  impeachment  which  has  arisen 
under  the  constitution  of  the  Commonwealth. — The  decision  now  to 
be  made  cannot  but  affect  subsequent  cases.  Governments  neces- 
sarily are  more  or  less  regardful  of  precedents,  on  interesting  public 
trials,  and  as,  on  the  present  occasion,  all  who  act  any  part  here 
have  naturally  considered  what  has  been  done,  and  what  rules  and 
principles  have  governed,  in  similar  cases,  in  other  communities,  so 
those  who  shall  come  after  us  will  look  back  to  this  trial.  And  I 
most  devoutly  hope  they  may  be  able  to  regard  it,  as  a  safe  and  use- 
ful example,  fit  to  instruct  and  gifide  them  in  their  own  duty;  an  ex- 
ample full  of  wisdom,  and  of  moderation;  an  example  of  cautious 
and  temperate  justice;  an  example  of  law  and  principle  successfully 
opposed  to  temporary  excitement;  an  example,  indicating  in  all  those 
who  bear  a  leading  part  in  the  proceedings,  a  spirit,  fitted  for  a  ju- 
dicial trial,  and  proper  for  men  who  act  with  an  enlightened  and 
firm  regard  to  the  permanent  interests  of  public  constitutional  lib- 
erty. To  preserve  the  Respondent  in  the  office  which  he  fills,  may 
be  an  object  of  little  interest  to  the  public;  and  to  deprive  him  of 
that  office  may  be  of  as  little.  But  on  what  principles,  he  is  either 
to  be  preserved  or  deprived,  is  an  inquiry,  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
portant, and  in  which  the  public  has  a  deep  and  lasting  interest. 

The  provision,  which  the  constitutions  of  this  and  other  states 
have  made  for  trying  impeachments  before  the  Senate,  is  obviously 
adopted  from  an  analogy  to  the  English  constitution.  It  was  per- 
ceived, however,  and  could  hardly  fail  to  be  perceived,  that  the  re- 
semblance was  not  strong,  between  the  tribunals,  clothed  with  the 
power  of  trying  impeachments,  in  this  country,  and  the  English 
House  of  Lords.  This  last  is  not  only  a  branch  of  the  legislature, 
but  a  standing  judicature.  It  has  jurisdiction  to  revise  the  judg- 
ments of  all  other  courts.  It  is  accustomed  to  the  daily  exercise  of 
judicial  power,  and  has  acquired  the  habit  and  character  which  such 
exercise  confers.  There  is  a  presumption,  therefore,  that  it  will  try 
impeachments,  as  it  tries  other  causes,  and  that  the  common  rules 
of  evidence,  and  the  forms  of  proceedings,  so  essential  to  the  rights 
of  the  accused,  which  prevail  in  other  cases,  will  prevail  also  in 
cases  of  impeachment.  In  the  construction  of  our  American  govern- 
ments, it  is  obvious,  that  although  the  power  of  judging  on  impeach- 
ments could  probably  be  nowhere  so  well  deposited,  as  with  the 
senate,  yet  it  could  not  but  be  foreseen,  that  this  high  act  of  judica- 
ture was  to  be  trusted  to  the  hands  of  those  who  did  not  ordinarily 
perform  judicial  functions;  but  who  occasionally  only,  and  on  such 


140 

occasions,  moreover,  as  were  generally  likely  to  be  attended  with 
some  excitement,  took  upon  themselves  the  duty  of  judges.  It 
must,  nevertheless,  be  confessed,  that  few  evils  have  been,  as  yetj 
found  to  result  from  this  arrangement.  In  all  the  states,  in  the  ag- 
gregate, although  there  have  been  several  impeachments,  there  have 
been  fewer  convictions,  and  fewer  still,  in  which  there  is  just  reason 
to  suppose  injustice  has  taken  place.  From  the  experience  of  the 
past,  I  trust  we  form  favorable  anticipations  of  the  future,  and  that 
the  judgment  which  this  court  shall  now  pronounce,  and  the  rules 
and  principles  which  shall  guide  that  judgment,  will  be  such  as  shall 
secure  to  the  community  a  rigorous  and  unrelenting  censorship  over 
maladministration  in  office,  and  to  individuals  entire  protection 
against  prejudice,  excitement,  and  injustice. 

The  Respondent  is  impeached  for  various  instances  of  alleged  mis- 
conduct, in  his  office,  as  Judge  of  Probate,  for  the  county  of  Mid- 
dlesex. In  order  that  we  may  understand  the  duties  which  he  is 
charged  with  violating,  it  is  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  origin  and 
nature  of  these  duties,  and  to  examine  the  legal  history  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, in  regard  to  the  officers,  who  from  time  to  time  have 
executed  and  performed  these  duties.  It  is  now  two  centuries  since 
our  ancestors  established  a  colony  here.  They  brought  with  them, 
of  course,  the  general  notions  with  regard  to  property,  the  admin- 
istration of  justice,  and  the  peculiar  powers  and  duties  of  different 
tribunals,  which  they  had  formed  in  the  country  which  they  left;  and 
these  notions,  and  general  ideas,  they  adopted  in  practice,  with  such 
modifications  as  circumstances  rendered  necessary.  In  England, 
they  had  been  accustomed  to  see  the  jurisdiction  over  wills  and  ad- 
ministrations exercised  in  the  spiritual  courts,  by  the  bishops  or  their 
ordinaries.  Here,  there  were  no  such  courts.  Still  it  was  a  neces- 
sary jurisdiction,  to  be  exercised  by  some  tribunal,  and  in  the  early 
history  of  the  colony,  it  was  exercised  by  the  same  magistrates,  or 
some  of  them,  on  whom  the  other  portions  of  judicial  power  were 
conferred.  Wills  were  proved,  and  administrations  granted,  by  the 
county  magistrates,  essentially  in  the  same  manner  as  in  England 
by  the  bishops,  or  their  delegates.  It  seems  that  any  two  magis- 
trates, with  the  clerk  of  the  county  court,  might  prove  a  will,  and 
cause  it  to  be  recorded  in  the  county  court;  and  might  grant  admin- 
istrations, in  like  manner.     (Ancient  Charters,  204.) 

At  length,  by  the  act  of  1685,  (An.  Ch.  205)  it  was  expressly  de- 
clared, that  the  county  court,  in  cases  of  probate  of  wills,  and  the 
granting  of  administrations,  should  have  the  same  power  and  au- 
thority as  the  ordinary  in  England. 

By  the  provincial  charter  of  1692,  all  power  and  jurisdiction,  in 
the  probate  of  wills  and  granting  administration,  was  conferred  on 
the  governor  and  council.  The  governor  then  became  supreme  or- 
dinary, and  by  the  provision  of  the  statutes  they  were  to  exercise 
the  same  power  and  authority  as  were  exercised  by  the  ordinary  in 
England. 

At  this  time,  no  statute  had  regulated  fees  in  the  probate  office; 
and  yet  it  is  not  probable  that  business  was  done  there,  at  that  time, 
without  fees,  any  more  than  at  later  periods.  We  must  look  there- 
fore for  some  other  authority,  than  a  statute  permission,  for  the 


141 

establishment  and  regulation  of  fees,  in  this  office.  And  as  the 
governor  and  council  possessed  the  general  power  of  the  courts  in 
England,  it  is  material  to  inquire  into  the  authority  and  practice  of 
those  courts  in  this  particular.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  in  the 
English  courts,  fees,  in  cases  of  probate  and  administration,  were, 
from  early  times,  in  most  cases  regulated  by  custom,  and  the  author- 
ity and  direction  of  the  courts  themselves,  without  statute  provisions. 
A  table  of  fees,  established  in  1597,  in  the  time  of  archbishop  Whit- 
gift,  may  be  seen  in  Burn's  Ecclesiastical  Law,  vol.  2.  p.  266. 

This  table  sets  forth  a  long  list  of  charges  and  fees  of  office  ac- 
cruing in  the  administration  of  estates,  such  as  for  "  administra- 
tion," which  probably  means  decreeing  administration,  "commis- 
sion," which  is  the  letter  of  administration,  "  interlocutory  decree," 
"  examination  of  account,"  "  respite  of  inventory,"  "  caveat," 
u  citation,"  "  quietus,"  &c.  &c.  &c.  At  this  time  there  was  no 
statute  which  established  the  fees  of  office,  in  cases  of  administra- 
tion, except  one  single  provision  in  the  St.  21,  Hen.  VIII,  cap.  5, 
which  enacted,  that  for  granting  administration  on  goods  under  forty 
pounds,  the  judge  should  receive  no  more  than  two  shillings  and 
sixpence.  It  appears  from  the  preamble  of  that  statute,  that  no  pre- 
vious law  was  existing,  on  the  subject,  and  the  grievance  recited, 
is,  that  the  bishops  and  their  ordinaries  demanded  and  received 
greater  fees,  for  the  probation  of  testaments,  and  other  things  there- 
unto belonging,  than  had  been  afocetime  usual  and  accustomed. 
The  preamble  recites  also,  that  an  act  of  Henry  V.  had  ordained, 
that  no  ordinary  should  take,  for  the  probation  of  testaments,  or 
other  things  to  the  same  belonging,  any  more  than  was  accustomed 
and  used  in  the  time  of  king  Edward  the  third,  which  act  did 
endure  but  to  the  next  parliament,  by  reason  that  the  said  ordinaries  did 
then  promise  to  reform  and  amend  their  exactions :  but  inasmuch  as  the 
evil  was  still  continued  and  aggravated,  the  act  proceeded  to  limit 
and  fix  fees  of  office,  for  the  probate  of  wills,  and  for  otjjer  services 
respecting  testate  estates,  and  contains  the  single  provision  above 
mentioned,  and  no  more,  respecting  administrations  on  intestate 
estates. 

It  is  entirely  clear  and  certain,  that  the  fees  of  bishops  and  their 
ordinaries  did  not  originate  in  the  grant  or  provision  of  any  act  of 
parliament.  Such  acts  were  passed  only  to  restrain  and  limit  the 
amount,  and  to  prevent  exaction  and  extortion.  The  right  to  demand 
and  receive  fees  rested  on  the  general  principle  of  a  right  to  com- 
pensation for  services  rendered;  and  in  the  absence  of  statute  limit- 
ations, the  amount  was  ascertained  by  the  practice  and  usage  of  the 
courts,  being  reasonable  and  proper.  Hence  it  happened,  in  Eng- 
land, that  different  fees  were  paid,  and  probably  still  are,  in  the  dif- 
ferent dioceses,  according  to  the  usage  of  different  courts,  and  the 
time  when  their  tables  of  fees  were  respectively  established.  "  In 
the  several  dioceses  there  are  tables  of  fees,  different,  as  it  seemeth, 
in  the  several  charges,  in  proportion  to  the  difference  of  times  where- 
in they  have  been  established."  (2.  Burn,  269.)  This  is  precisely 
what  has  happened,  and  what,  whether  allowed  to  prove  it  or  not, 
every  member  of  this  court  knows,  now  actually  exists,  in  relation 
to  the  different  counties  of  this  Commonwealth. 


142 

It  is  most  material  to  the  Respondent's  case  to  understand  clearly, 
on  what  ground  it  is,  that,  as  Judge  of  Probate,  he  had  a  right  to 
receive  fees  for  services  performed  in  his  office.  There  is  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  in  matter  of  law,  in  this  respect,  between  the  Man- 
agers and  ourselves,  wide  enough,  in  my  judgment,  to  extend  over 
the  whole  case.  If  the  House  of  Representatives  be  right,  in  the 
legal  doctrine  which  their  Managers  have  advanced  here,  I  agree  at 
once  the  case  is  against  the  Respondent,  unless,  indeed,  an  indul- 
gence may  be  allowed  to  his  infirmity,  in  not  understanding  the  law, 
as  it  is  now  asserted.  I  will  proceed  to  state  the  question,  now  at 
issue  between  the  Managers  and  us,  as  clearly  as  I  may  be  able. 
The  Managers  contend  that  all  fees  of  office,  in  such  offices  as  the 
Respondent's,  arise  only  from  the  express  grant  of  the  legislature; 
and  that  none  can  be  claimed,  where  such  grant  is  not  shown.  We, 
on  the  other  hand,  humbly  submit,  that  the  right,  in  such  offices,  to 
receive  fees,  is  the  general  right  to  receive  reasonable  compensation 
for  services  rendered,  and  labor  performed;  and  is  no  otherwise  af- 
fected by  statute,  than  as  the  amount  of  fees,  is,  or  may  be,  limited 
by  statute. 

It  is  certain,  that  judges  of  probate,  in  this  state,  are  required 
to  perform  many  acts,  (such,  for  instance,  as  granting  guardianship 
to  persons  non  compotes  mentis)  for  which  no  fees  are  specifically 
established  by  the  statute.  One  of  the  learned  Managers  has  ex- 
pressly advanced  the  proposition,  that  for  such  services  the  judge  is 
entitled  to  receive  no  fees  whatever.  He  contends,  that  the  law 
presumes  him  to  be  adequately  paid,  on  a  sort  of  average,  for  all  ser- 
vices by  him  performed,  by  the  fees  specially  provided  for  some.  On 
the  contrary,  we,  very  numbly,  insist,  that  in  all  such  cases  the  judge 
has  a  right  to  receive  a  just  and  reasonable  fee  of  office  for  the  ser- 
vice performed;  the  amount  to  be  settled,  on  proper  principles,  and, 
as  well  as  in  any  way,  by  analogy  to  similar  services,  for  which  the 
amount  of  fees  is  fixed  by  statute.  The  statute,  for  example,  es- 
tablishes the  fees  for  a  grant  of  guardianship  over  minors.  It  estab- 
lishes none,  for  guardianship  over  persons  non  compotes  mentis.  The 
precise  difference  between  the  learned  Managers  and  us,  is,  that  they 
contend,  that,  in  the  last  case,  the  judge  is  entitled  to  receive  no  fee 
at  all;  while  we  think,  that  he  has  a  right  to  receive,  in  such  case, 
a  reasonable  fee;  and  that  what  is  resonable  may  fairly  be  determin- 
ed by  reference  to  what  the  law  allows  him  in  the  case  of  guardian- 
ship over  minors. 

I  rejoice,  sir,  in  behalf  of  my  client,  that  we  have  here  a  plain,  in- 
telligible question  of  law,  to  be  discussed  and  decided.  This  is  a 
question,  in  which  neither  prerogative  nor  discretion  has  aught  to  do. 
It  is  not  to  be  decided,  by  reasons  of  state,  or  those  political  consid- 
erations, which  we  have  heard  so  often,  but  so  indefinitely,  and,  in 
my  judgment,  so  alarmingly,  referred  to,  and  relied  on,  in  the  open- 
ing speeches  of  more  than  one  of  the  learned  Managers.  It  may 
possibly  happen,  sir,  to  the  learned  Managers,  to  share  the  fortunes 
of  the  gods  in  Homer's  battles.  While  they  keep  themselves  in  the 
high  atmosphere  of  prerogative,  and  political  discretion,  and  assail 
the  Respondent  from  the  clouds,  the  advantage,  in  the  controversy, 
may  remain  entirely  with  them.     When  they  descend,  however,  to 


143 

an  equal  field  of  mortal  combat,  and  consent  to  contend  with  mortal 
weapons — cominus  ense — it  is  probable  they  may  sometimes  get,  as 
well  as  give,  a  wound.  On  the  present  question,  we  meet  the  learn- 
ed Managers  on  equal  terms,  and  fair  ground,  and  we  are  willing 
that  our  client's  fate  should  abide  the  result.  The  Managers  have 
advanced  a  plain  and  intelligible  proposition,  as  being  the  law  of  the 
land.  If  they  make  it  out,  they  show  a  good  case  against  the  Re- 
spondent; if  they  fail  so  to  do,  then  their  case,  so  far  as  it  rests  on 
this  proposition,  fails  also.     Let,  then,  the  proposition  be  examined. 

The  proposition  is,  as  before  stated,  that  for  services,  which  the 
law  requires  judges  of  probate  to  perform,  but  for  which  there  is  no 
particular  fee  established  or  provided  by  statute,  they  can  receive 
no  fee  whatever. 

In  the  first  place,  let  it  be  remarked,  that,  of  the  various  duties 
and  services,  required  of  judges  of  probate,  some  grow  out  of  the 
very  nature  of  their  office,  and  are  incidental  to  it,  or  arise  by  com- 
mon law;  others  were  imposed  by  statutes  passed  before  the  estab- 
lishment of  any  fee  bill  whatever,  and  others,  again,  by  statutes 
passed  since.  The  statute,  commonly  called  the  fee  bill,  was  passed 
for  the  regulation  of  fees  in  other  courts,  and  other  offices,  as  well 
as  of  the  judges  and  registers  of  probate.  It  imposes  no  duty  what- 
ever on  any  officer.  It  treats  only  of  existing  duties,  and  of  those 
no  farther  than  to  limit  fees.  It  declares,  that,  "  The  fees  of  the 
several  persons  hereafter  mentioned,  for  the  services  respectively  an- 
nexed to  their  names,  shall  be  as  follows,"  &c.  The  statute  then 
proceeds  to  enumerate,  among  other  things,  certain  services  of  the 
judges  of  probate;  but  it  is  acknowledged  that  it  does  not  enumerate 
or  set  forth  all  the  services,  which  the  law  calls  on  him  to  perform. 

In  our  opinion,  sir,  this  is  simply  a  restraining  statute.  It  fixes 
the  amount  of  fees,  in  the  cases  mentioned,  leaving  everything  else 
as  it  stood  before.  I  have  already  stated,  that,  in  England,  fees,  in 
the  ecclesiastical  courts,  for  probate  of  wills,  and  granting  adminis- 
trations, were  of  earlier  date  than  any  statute  respecting  them,  and 
their  amount  ascertained,  by  usage,  and  the  authority  of  the  courts 
themselves.  "  The  rule  is,"  says  Dr.  Burn,  "  the  known  and  es- 
tablished custom  of  every  place,  being  reasonable."  (4.  Bum's 
Eccles.  Law,  267.) 

And  if  the  reasonableness  of  the  fee  be  disputed,  it  may  be  tried 
by  jury,  whether  the  fee  be  reasonable.  (1.  Salkeld,  333.)  If  this 
be  so,  then  clearly  there  exists  a  right  to  some  fee,  independent  of  a 
particular  statute;  for  if  there  be  no  right  to  any  fee  at  all,  why  refer 
to  a  jury  to  decide  what  fee  would  be  reasonable  ?  But  the  law  is 
still  more  express  on  this  point. — "  Fees  are  certain  perquisites  al- 
lowed to  officers  in  the  administration  of  justice,  as  a  recompense  for 
tlieir  labor  and  trouble;  ascertained,  either  by  acts  of  parliament,  or 
by  ancient  usage,  which  gives  them  an  equal  sanction  with  an  act  of 
parliament."  All  such  fees  as  have  been  allowed  by  courts  of  jus- 
tice to  their  officers,  as  a  recompense  for  their  labor  and  attendance, 
are  established  fees;  and  the  parties  cannot  be  deprived  of  them  with- 
out an  act  of  parliament."  {Coke,  Lit.  368.  Free.  Chan.  551 
Jacob's  Law  Did.—"  Fees.") 


144 

I  may  add,  that  fees  are  recoverable,  in  an  action  of  assumpsit,  as 
for  work  and  labor  performed.  The  doctrine  contended  for  on  the 
other  side  is  contradicted,  in  so  many  words,  by  a  well  settled  rule; 
viz.  that  if  an  office  be  erected  for  the  public  good,  though  no  fee  is 
annexed  to  it,  it  is  a  good  office;  and  the  party,  for  the  labor  and 
pains  which  he  takes  in  executing  it,  may  maintain  a  quantum  meruit, 
if  not  as  a/ee  yet  as  a  compensation,  for  his  trouble.  (Moore,  808. 
Jac.  "  Fees."  (A.  E.)     Bard.  355.  Salk.  333.) 

The  universal  practice,  sir,  has  corresponded  with  these  rules  of 
law.  Almost  every  officer  in  the  Commonwealth,  whose  compensa- 
tion consists  in  fees  of  office,  renders  services  not  enumerated  in  the 
fee  bill,  and  is  paid  for  those  services;  and  this,  through  no  indul- 
gence, or  abuse,  but  with  great  propriety  and  justice.  Allow  me  to 
mention  one  instance,  which  may  be  taken  as  a  sample  for  many. 
Some  thousands  of  dollars  are  paid,  every  year,  to  the  clerks  of  the 
several  Courts  of  Common  Pleas,  in  this  State,  {br  certified  copies  of 
papers  and  records  remaining  in  their  offices.  The  fee  bill  neither 
authorises  the  taking  of  any  such  fee,  nor  limits  its  amount,  nor 
mentions  it,  in  any  way.  There  are  other  instances,  equally  clear 
and  strong,  and  they  show  us  that  all  the  courts  of  justice,  and  all 
the  officers  concerned  in  its  administration,  have  understood  the  law, 
as  the  Respondent  has  understood  it;  and  that  the  notion  of  the 
learned  Managers  derives  as  little  support  from  practice,  as  it  does 
from  reason  or  authority.  The  learned  Managers  have  produced 
no  one  opinion  of  any  writer,  no  decision  of  any  court,  and,  as  I 
think,  no  shadow  of  reason,  to  sustain  themselves  in  the  extraordi- 
nary ground  which  they  have  taken;  ground,  I  admit,  essential  to  be 
maintained  by  them,  but  which  the  Respondent  could  devoutly  wish 
they  had  taken  somewhat  more  of  pains  to  examine  and  explore  be- 
fore, on  the  strength  of  it,  they  had  brought  him  to  this  bar.  I  sub- 
mit it,  sir,  to  the  judgment  of  this  court,  and  to  the  judgment  of 
every  judge  and  every  lawyer  in  the  land,  whether  the  law  be  not, 
that  officers,  paid  by  fees,  have  a  right  to  such  fees,  for  services  ren- 
dered, on  the  general  principle  of  compensation  for  work  and  labor 
performed;  the  amount  to  be  ascertained  by  the  statute,  in  cases  in 
which  the  statute  has  made  a  regulation;  and,  in  other  cases,  by  anal- 
ogy to  the  services,  whicb  are  especially  provided  for,  and  by  a  con- 
sideration of  what  is  just  and  reasonable  in  the  case.  With  all  my 
respect,  sir,  for  the  learned  Managers,  it  would  be  mere  affectation, 
if  I  were  to  express  myself  with  any  diffidence  on  this  part  of  the 
case,  or  should  leave  the  topic  with  the  avowal  of  any  other  feeling 
than  surprise,  that  a  judge  of  the  land  should  be  impeached  and  pros- 
ecuted upon  the  foundation  of  such  opinions  as  have  in  this  particu- 
lar been  advanced. 

Before  I  proceed  further,  sir,  I  wish  to  take  notice  of  a  point, 
perhaps  not  entirely  essential  to  the  case.  The  Respondent,  in  his 
answer,  has  stated,  that  the  jurisdiction  of  judges  of  probate  con- 
sists of  two  parts,  commonly  called  the  amicable  or  voluntary  and 
the  contentious  jurisdiction.  One  of  the  learned  Managers  has 
said,  that  this  distinction  can  by  no  means  be  allowed,  and  has  pro- 
ceeded to  state,  if  I  rightly  understood  him,  that  the  voluntary  juris- 


145 

diction  of  the  English  ecclesiastical  courts  has  not,  in  any  part  of  it, 
devolved  on,  and  been  granted  to,  the  judges  of  probate  here.  As 
it  is  not  perhaps  material  for  the  present  discussion,  to  ascertain 
precisely  what  is  the  true  distinction  between  the  voluntary  and  the 
contentious  jurisdiction  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  as  understood  in 
England,  I  shall  content  myself  with  reading  a  single  authority  on 
the  subject.  Dr.  Burn  (vol.  1,  p.  292)  says; — "  Voluntary  jurisdic- 
tion is  exercised  in  matters  which  require  no  judicial  proceeding,  as 
in  granting  probate  of  wills,  letters  of  administration,  sequestration 
of  vacant  benefices,  institution,  and  such  like;  contentious  jurisdic- 
tion is,  where  there  is  an  action  or  judicial  process,  and  consisteth 
in  the  hearing  and  determining  of  causes  between  party  and  party." 

It  can  be  now  at  once  seen,  sir,  whether  any  part  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion exercised  by  judges  of  probate  in  this  State,  be  voluntary, 
within  this  definition  of  the  distinction  between  voluntary  and  con- 
tentious. 

After  these  observations,  sir,  on  the  general  nature  and  origin  of 
fees,  accruing  in  the  probate  offices,  I  shall  proceed  to  a  considera- 
tion of  the  charges  contained  in  these  articles. 

And  the  first  inquiry  is,  whether  any  misconduct  or  maladministra- 
tion in  office,  is  sufficiently  charged,  upon  the  Respondent,  in  any  of 
them.  To  decide  this  question,  it  is  necessary  to  inquire,  what  is 
the  law  governing  impeachments;  and  by  what  rule  questions  arising 
in  such  proceedings  are  to  be  determined.  My  learned  colleague, 
who  has  immediately  preceded  me,  has  gone  very  extensively  into 
this  part  of  the  case.  I  have  little  to  add,  and  shall  not  detain  you 
by  repetition.  I  take  it,  sir,  that  this  is  a  court;  that  the  Respondent 
is  brought  here  to  be  tried;  that  you  are  his  judges;  and  that  the  rule 
of  your  decision  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitution  and  the  law.  If 
this  be  not  so,  my  time  is  misspent  in  speaking  here,  and  yours  also 
in  listening  to  me.  Upon  any  topics  of  expediency,  or  policy;  upon 
a  question  of  what  may  be  best,  upon  the  whole;  upon  a  great  part 
of  those  considerations,  with  which  the  leading  Manager  opened  his 
case,  I  have  not  one  word  to  say.  If  this  be  a  court,  and  the  Re- 
spondent on  his  trial  before  it;  if  he  be  to  be  tried,  and  can  only  be 
tried  for  some  offence  known  to  the  constitution  and  the  law;  and  if  evi- 
dence against  him  can  be  produced  only  according  to  the  ordinary 
rules,  then,  indeed,  counsel  may  possibly  be  of  service  to  him.  But 
if  other  considerations,  such  as  have  been  plainly  announced,  are 
to  prevail,  and  that  were  known,  counsel  owe  no  duty  to  their  client 
which  could  compel  them  to  a  totally  fruitless  effort,  for  his  defence. 
I  take  it  for  granted,  however,  sir,  that  this  court  feels  itself  bound 
by  the  constitution  and  the  law;  and  I  shall  therefore  proceed  to 
inquire  whether  these  articles,  or  any  of  them,  are  sustained  by  the 
constitution  and  the  law. 

I  take  it  to  be  clear,  that  an  impeachment  is  a  prosecution  for  the 
violation  of  existing  laws;  and  that  the  offence,  in  cases  of  impeach- 
ment, must  be  set  forth  substantially  in  the  same  manner  as  in  in- 
dictments.— I  say  substantially,  for  there  may  be,  in  indictments, 
certain  technical  requisitions,  which  are  not  necessary  to  be  regarded 
in  impeachments.  The  constitution  has  given  this  body  the  power 
of  trying  impeachments,  without  defining  what  an  impeachment  is, 
19  N 


146 

and  therefore  necessarily  introducing,  with  the  term  itself,  its  usual 
and  received  definition,  and  the  character  and  incidents  which  be- 
long to  it.  An  impeachment,  it  is  well  known,  is  a  judicial  proceed- 
ing. It  is  a  trial,  and  conviction  in  that  trial  is  to  be  followed  by 
forfeiture  and  punishment.  Hence,  the  authorities  instruct  us,  that 
the  rules  of  proceeding  are  substantially  the  same  as  prevail  in  other 
criminal  proceedings.  (2.  Wooddeson,  61 1.  4.  Bl.  Comm.  259.  \.H 
P.  C.  150.  1.  Chithfs  Criminal  Law,  169.)  There  is,  on  this  occa- 
sion, no  manner  of  discretion  in  this  court,  any  more  than  there  is, 
in  other  cases,  in  a  judge  or  a  juror.  It  is  all  a  question  of  law  and 
evidence.  Nor  is  there,  in  regard  to  evidence,  any  more  latitude, 
than  on  trials  for  murder,  or  any  other  crime,  in  the  courts  of  law. 
Rules  of  evidence  are  rules  of  law,  and  their  observance  on  this 
occasion  can  no  more  be  dispensed  with  than  any  other  rule  of  law. 
Whatever  may  be  imagined  to  the  contrary,  it  will  commonly  be 
found,  that  a  disregard  of  the  ordinary  rules  of  evidence,  is  but  the 
harbinger  of  injustice.  Tribunals  which  do  not  regard  those  rules, 
seldom  regard  any  other;  and  those  who  think  they  may  make  free 
with  what  the  law  has  ordained  respecting  evidence,  generally  find 
an  apology  for  making  free  also  with  what  it  has  ordained  respecting 
other  things.  They  who  admit  or  reject  evidence,  according  to  no 
other  rule  than  their  own  good  pleasure,  generally  decide  everything 
else  by  the  same  rule. 

This  being,  then,  a  judicial  proceeding,  the  first  requisite  is,  that 
the  Respondent's  offence,  should  be  fully  and  plainly,  substantially  and 
formally  described  to  him.  This  is  the  express  requisition  of  the 
constitution.  Whatever  is  necessary  to  be  proved,  must  be  alleged; 
and  it  must  be  alleged  with  ordinary  and  reasonable  certainty.  I 
have  already  said,  that  there  may  be  necessary  in  indictments,  cer 
tain  technical  niceties,  which  are  not  necessary  in  cases  of  impeach- 
ments. There  are,  for  example,  certain  things  necessary  to  be 
stated,  in  strictness,  in  indictments,  which,  nevertheless,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  prove  precisely  as  stated.  An  indictment  must  set 
forth,  among  other  things,  for  instance,  the  particular  day  when  the 
offence  is  alleged  to  have  been  committed;  but  it  need  not  be  proved 
to  have  been  committed  on  that  particular  day.  It  has  been  holden, 
in  the  case  of  an  impeachment,  that  it  is  sufficient  to  state  the  com- 
mission of  the  offence  to  have  been  on  or  about  a  particular  day. 
Such  was  the  decision,  in  Lord  Winton's  case;  as  may  be  seen  in 
4th  HatseWs  Precedents,  297.  In  that  case,  the  respondent,  being 
convicted,  made  a  motion  to  arrest  the  judgment,  on  the  ground 
that  "  the  impeachment  was  insufficient,  for  that  the  time  of  commit- 
ting the  high  treason  is  not  therein  laid  with  sufficient  certainty.''1 
The  principal  facts  charged  in  that  case  were  laid  to  be  committed 
"  on  or  about  the  months  of  September,  October,  or  November  last;''1 
and  the  taking  of  Preston,  and  the  battle  there,  which  are  among 
the  acts  of  treason,  were  laid  to  be  done  "  about  the  9lh,  10th,  llth, 
12//j,  or  \3th,  of  November  last.11 

A  question  was  put  to  the  judges,  "  whether  in  indictments  for 
treason  or  felony  it  be  necessary  to  allege  some  certain  day  upon 
which  the  fact  is  supposed  to  be  committed;  or,  if  it  be  only  alleged 
in  an  indictment  that  the  crime  was  committed  on  or  about  a  certain 


147 

day,  whether  that  would  be  sufficient."  And  the  judges  answered, 
that  it  is  necessary  that  there  be  a  certain  day  laid  in  the  indictment, 
and  that  to  allege  that  the  fact  was  committed  on  or  about  a  certain 
day  would  not  be  sufficient.  The  judges  were  next  asked,  whether, 
it'  a  certain  day  be  alleged,  in  an  indictment,  it  be  necessary,  on  the 
trial,  to  prove  the  fact  to  be  committed  on  that  day;  and  they  answer- 
ed, that  it  is  not  necessary.  And  thereupon  the  lords  resolved,  that 
the  impeachment  was  sufficiently  certain  in  point  of  time.  This 
case  furnishes  a  good  illustration  of  the  rule,  which  I  think  is  rea- 
sonable and  well  founded,  that  whatever  is  to  be  proved  must  be 
stated,  and  that  no  more  need  be  stated. 

In  the  next  place,  the  matter  of  the  charge  must  be  the  breach  of 
some  known  and  standing  law;  the  violation  of  some  positive  duty. 
If  our  constitutions  of  government  have  not  secured  this,  they  have 
done  very  little  indeed  for  the  security  of  civil  liberty.  "  There  are 
two  points,"  said  a  distinguished  statesman,  "  on  which  the  whole  of 
the  liberty  of  every  individual  depends;  one,  the  trial  by  jury;  the 
other,  a  maxim,  arising  out  of  the  elements  of  justice  itself,  that  no 
man  shall,  under  any  pretence  whatever,  be  tried  upon  anything  but 
a  known  law."  These  two  great  points  our  constitutions  have  en- 
deavoured to  establish;  and  the  constitution  of  this  Commonwealth 
in  particular,  has  provisions  on  this  subject,  as  full  and  ample  as  can 
be  expressed  in  the  language  in  which  that  constitution  is  written. 

Allow  me  then,  sir,  on  these  rules  and  principles  to  inquire  into 
the  legal  sufficiency  of  the  charges  contained  in  the  first  article. 

And  first,  as  to  the  illegality  of  the  time  or  place  of  holding  the 
court,  I  beg  to  know  what  there  is  stated,  in  the  article,  to  show  that 
illegality'?  What  fact  is  alleged,  on  which  the  Managers  now  rely? 
Not  one. — Illegality  itself  is  not  a  fact,  but  an  inference  of  law, 
drawn  by  the  Managers,  on  facts  known  or  supposed  by  them,  but 
not  stated  in  the  charge,  nor  until  the  present  moment  made  known 
to  anybody  else.  We  hear  them  now  contending,  that  these  courts 
were  illegal  for  the  following  reasons,  which  they  say  are  true,  as 
facts,  viz: 

1.  That  the  register  was  absent; 

2.  That  the  register  had  no  notice  to  be  present; 

3.  That  parties  had  not  notice  to  be  present. 

Now,  not  one  of  these  is  stated  in  the  article.  No  one  fact  or 
circumstance,  now  relied  on  as  making  a  case  against  the  defendant, 
is  stated  in  the  charge.  Was  he  not  entitled  to  know,  I  beg  to  ask, 
what  was  to  be  proved  against  him  ?  If  it  was  to  be  contended  that 
persons  were  absent  from  those  courts  who  ought  to  have  been  pres- 
ent, or  that  parties  had  no  notice,  who  were  entitled  to  receive 
notice,  ought  not  the  Respondent  to  be  informed,  that  he  might 
encounter  evidence  by  evidence,  and  be  prepared  to  disprove,  what 
would  be  attempted  to  be  proved? 

This  charge,  sir,  I  maintain  is  wholly  and  entirely  insufficient. 
It  is  a  mere  nullity.  If  it  were  an  indictment  in  the  courts  of  law, 
it  would  be  quashed,  not  for  want  of  formality,  or  technical  accuracy, 
but  for  want  of  substance  in  the  charge.  I  venture  to  say  there  is 
not  a  court  in  the  country,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  in  which 
such  a  charge  would  be  thought  sufficient  to  warrant  a  judgment. 


148 

The  next  charge  in  this  article  is  for  receiving  illegal  fees  for 
services  performed.  I  contend  that  this  also  is  substantially  defective, 
in  not  setting  out  what  sum  in  certain,  the  defendant  has  received 
as  illegal  fees.  It  is  material  to  his  defence  that  he  should  be  in- 
formed, more  particularly  than  he  here  is,  of  the  charge  against  him. 
If  it  be  merely  stated  that  for  divers  services  respecting  one  admin- 
istration, he  received  a  certain  sum,  and  for  divers  others,  respect- 
ing another,  another  certain  sum,  and  that  these  sums  were  too  large, 
(which  is  the  form  of  accusation  adopted  in  this  case,)  he  cannot 
know  for  what  service,  or  on  what  particular  item,  he  is  charged 
with  having  received  illegal  fees.  The  legal  and  the  illegal  are 
mixed  up  together,  and  he  is  only  told  that  in  the  aggregate  he  has 
received  too  much.  In  some  of  these  cases,  there  is  a  number  of 
items,  or  particulars,  in  which  fees  are  charged  and  received;  but 
in  the  articles  these  items  or  particulars  are  not  stated,  and  he  is  left 
to  conjecture,  out  of  ten,  or  it  may  be  twenty,  particular  cases, 
which  one  it  is,  that  the  proof  is  expected  to  apply  to. 

My  colleague  has  referred  to  the  cases,  in  which  it  has  been  ad- 
judged, that  in  prosecutions  against  officers  for  the  alleged  taking 
of  illegal  fees,  this  general  manner  of  statement  is  insufficient.  It 
is  somewhat  remarkable,  that  ancient  acts  of  Parliament  should  have 
been  passed  expressly  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  officers,  exerci- 
sing jurisdiction  over  wills  and  administration,  against  prosecutions 
in  this  form;  which  were  justly  deemed  oppressive.  The  st.  25,  Ed. 
3,  cap.  9,  after  reciting,  "  that  the  king's  justices  do  take  indictments 
of  ordinaries,  and  of  their  officers,  of  extortion,  or  oppressions,  and 
impeach  them,  without  putting  in  certain,  wherein,  or  whereof,  or  in 
what  manner  they  have  done  extortion;" — proceeds  to  enact,  "  That 
his  justices  shall  not  from  henceforth  impeach  the  ordinaries,  nor 
their  officers,  because  of  such  indictments  of  general  extortions  or 
oppressions,  unless  they  say,  and  put  in  certain,  in  what  thing,  and 
of  what,  and  in  what  manner  the  said  ordinaries  or  their  officers 
have  done  extortions  or  oppressions." 

The  charge  in  this  case,  ought  to  have  stated  the  offensive  act, 
for  which  the  fee  was  taken;  and  the  amount  of  the  fee  received. 
The  Court  could  then  see  whether  it  were  illegal.  Whereas  the 
article,  after  reciting  certain  services  performed  by  the  Respondent, 
some  of  which  are  mentioned  in  the  fee  bill,  and  others  are  not,  al- 
leges that  for  the  business  aforesaid  the  Respondent  demanded  and 
received  other  and  greater  fees  than  are  by  law  allowed.  Does  this 
mean,  that  he  received  excessive  fees  for  every  service,  or  was  the 
whole  excess  charged  on  one  service  ?  Was  the  excess  taken  on 
those  particular  services,  for  which  a  specific  fee  is  given  by  the 
statute,  or  was  it  taken  for  those  services  not  mentioned  in  the  fee 
bill  at  all?  But  further;  the  article  proceeds  to  state,  that  after- 
wards during  and  upon  the  settlement  of  said  estate,  the  Respondent 
did  demand  and  receive  divers  sums,  as  fees  of  office,  other  and 
greater  than  are  by  law  allowed;  without  staling  at  all  what  services 
were  rendered,  for  which  these  fees  were  taken!  It  is  simply  a  general 
allegation,  that  the  Respondent  received  from  an  administrator,  in 
the  settlement  of  an  estate,  excessive  fees;  without  stating,  in  any 
manner  whatever,  what  the  excess  was,  or  even  what  services  were 


149 

performed.  I  beg  leave  to  ask,  sir,  of  the  learned  Managers,  whether 
they  will,  as  lawyers,  express  an  opinion  before  this  Court,  that  this 
mode  of  accusation  is  sufficient?  Do  they  find  any  precedent  for 
it,  or  any  principle  to  warrant  it?  If  they  mean  to  say,  that  pro- 
ceedings, in  cases  of  impeachment,  are  not  subject  to  rule;  that  the 
general  principles  applicable  to  other  criminal  proceedings  do  not 
apply;  this  is  an  intelligible,  though  it  may  be  an  alarming  course  of 
argument.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  admit,  that  a  prosecution  by 
impeachment  is  to  be  governed  by  the  general  rules  applicable  to 
other  criminal  prosecutions;  that  the  constitution  is  to  control  it;  and 
that  it  is  a  judicial  proceeding;  and,  if  they  recur,  as  they  have  already 
frequently  done,  to  the  law  relative  to  indictments,  for  doctrines  and 
maxims  applicable  to  this  proceeding;  I  again  ask  them,  and  I  hope 
in  their  reply  they  will  not  evade  an  answer,  will  they,  as  lawyers, 
before  a  tribunal  constituted  as  this,  say,  that  in  their  opinion,  this 
mode  of  charging  the  Respondent  is  constitutional  and  legal? 
Standing  in  the  situation  they  do,  and  before  such  a  Court,  will  they 
say,  that,  in  their  opinion,  the  Respondent  is  not,  constitutionally 
and  legally,  entitled  to  require  a  more  particular  statement  of  his 
supposed  offences?  I  think,  sir,  that  candor  and  justice  to  the  Re- 
spondent require,  that  the  learned  Managers  should  express,  on  this 
occasion,  such  opinions  on  matters  of  law,  as  they  would  be  willing, 
as  lawyers,  here  and  elsewhere  to  avow  and  defend.  I  must  there- 
fore, even  yet  again,  entreat  them  to  say,  in  the  course  of  their 
reply,  whether  they  maintain  that  this  mode  of  allegation  would  be 
sufficient  in  an  indictment;  and  if  not,  whether  they  maintain,  that 
in  an  impeachment,  it  is  less  necessary  that  the  defendant  be  in- 
formed of  the  fads  intended  to  be  proved  against  him,  than  it  is  in 
an  indictment.  The  learned  Managers  may  possibly  answer  me,  that 
it  is  their  business  only  to  argue  these  questions,  and  the  business 
of  the  Court  to  decide  them.  I  cannot  think,  however,  that  they 
will  be  satisfied  with  such  a  reply.  Under  the  circumstances  in 
which  he  is  placed,  the  Respondent  thinks  that  the  very  respectable 
gentlemen  who  prosecute  him,  in  behalf  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, owe  a  sort  of  duty,  even  to  him.  It  is  far  from  his  wish, 
however,  to  interfere  with  their  own  sense  of  their  own  duty.  They 
must  judge  for  themselves,  on  what  grounds  they  ask  his  conviction 
from  this  Court.  Yet  he  has  a  right  to  ask — and  he  does  most  ear- 
nestly ask,  and  would  repeatedly  and  again  and  again,  ask,  that  they 
will  state  those  grounds  plainly  and  distinctly.  For  he  trusts,  that 
if  there  be  a  responsibility,  even  beyond  the  immediate  occasion, 
for  opinions  and  sentiments  here  advanced,  they  must  be  entirely 
willing,  as  professional  men,  to  meet  that  responsibility. 

I  now  submit  to  this  Court,  whether  the  supposed  offences  of 
taking  illegal  fees,  as  charged  in  this  article,  are  set  forth  legally 
and  sufficiently;  either  by  the  common  rules  of  proceedings  in  crimi- 
nal cases,  or  according  to  the  constitution  of  the  State. 

As  to  the  manner  of  stating  the  offence  in  this  article — I  mean  the 
allegation  that  the  Respondent  refused  to  give,  on  request,  an  ac- 
count of  items  of  fees  received,  it  appears  to  me  to  be  substantially 
right,  and  I  have  no  remarks  to  make  upon  it.  The  question  upon 
that  will  be,  whether  the  fact  is  proved. 


150 

All  the  objections  which  have  been  made  to  the  first  article,  apply 
equally  to  the  second;  with  this  further  observation,  that  for  the  ser- 
vices mentioned  in  this  article  the  fee  bill  makes  no  provision  at  all. 
The  same  objections  apply  also  to  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  articles. 

It  seems  to  us,  sir,  that  all  these  charges  for  receiving  illegal  fees, 
without  setting  out,  in  particular,  what  service  was  done,  and  what 
was  the  amount  of  excess,  are  insufficient  to  be  the  foundation  of  a 
judgment  against  the  Respondent.  And  especially  all  the  articles, 
in  which  he  is  charged  with  receiving  fees  for  services  not  specified 
in  the  fee  bill;  it  being  not  stated,  what  he  would  be  properly  entitled 
to  in  such  cases,  by  usage,  and  the  practice  of  the  courts,  and  there 
being  no  allegation  that  the  sum  received  was  an  unreasonable  com- 
pensation for  the  services  performed.  In  this  respect  the  articles  con- 
sider that  to  be  settled  by  positive  law,  which  is  not  so  settled.  The 
second  article,  for  example,  alleges  that  the  Respondent  demanded 
and  received,  for  certain  letters  of  guardianship  granted  by  him  over 
persons  non  compotes  mentis  u  other  and  greater  fees  than  are  by  law 
allowed  therefor." — This  supposes,  then,  that  some  fees  are  allowed 
by  law  therefor;  yety  this  is  the  very  case  in  which  it  has  been  con- 
tended by  the  Managers  that  no  fee  whatever  was  due;  there  being 
none  mentioned  in  the  fee  bill.  Between  the  words  of  the  article, 
and  the  tenor  of  the  argument,  there  appears  to  me  to  be  no  small 
hostility.  Both  cannot  be  right.  They  cannot  stand  together. 
There  should  be  either  a  new  argument  to  support  the  article,  or  a 
new  article  to  meet  the  argument. 

Having  made  these  observations  on  the  legal  sufficiency  of  all 
the  articles  which  charge  the  Respondent  with  holding  unlawful 
courts,  and  demanding  and  receiving  unlawful  fees,  before  proceed- 
ing to  those  which  advance  charges  of  a  different  nature  against 
him,  allow  me  to  advert  to  the  evidence  which  has  been  given,  on 
these  five  first  articles  respectively;  and  to  consider  what  unlawful 
act  has  been  proved  against  the  Respondent  in  relation  to  the  mat- 
ters contained  in  them. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  proved,  that  the  Respondent  held  a  special 
Probate  Court  at  Groton,  October  14,  1816;  and  at  such  court  grant- 
ed letters  of  administration  to  one  Tarbell.  This  court  the  register 
did  net  attend.  With  respect  to  parties  concerned  in  the  business 
then  and  there  to  be  transacted,  they  all  had  notice,  as  far  as  appears; 
and  no  one  has  ever  been  heard  to  complain  on  that  account. 

It  has  now  been  contended,  sir,  by  the  learned  Managers,  that  this 
court  was  holden  unlawfully,  because  not  holden  at  a  time  previously 
fixed  by  law.  They  maintain  that  judges  of  probate  can  exercise  no 
jurisdiction,  except  at  certain  terms,  when  their  court  is  to  be  holden. 

On  the  contrary  the  Respondent  has  supposed,  and  has  acted  on 
the  supposition,  that  he  might  lawfully  hold  his  court,  for  the  trans- 
action of  ordinary  business,  at  such  time  and  place  as  he  might 
think  proper;  giving  due  and  proper  notice  to  all  parties  concerned. 
He  supposes  he  might  so  have  done,  independently  of  the  provis- 
ions of  any  statute;  and  he  supposes,  moreover,  that  he  was  authori- 
sed so  to  do,  by  the  express  provision  of  the  statute  of  1806. 

The  first  inquiry,  then,  is,  whether  the  probate  courts,  in  this 
Commonwealth,  be  not  courts  which  may  be  considered  as  always 


151 

open;  and  authorised,  at  ill  times,  to  receive  applications,  and  trans- 
act business;  upon  due  notice  to  all  parties;  or  whether  on  the  con- 
trary their  jurisdiction  can  only  be  exercised,  in  term,  or  at  such 
stated  periods  and  times  as  may  be  fixed  by  law.  It  is  true,  that 
the  common  law  courts  have  usually  fixed  terms,  and  can  exercise 
their  powers  only  during  the  continuance  of  these  terms.  In  Eng- 
land, the  termination  as  well  as  the  beginning  of  the  term  is  fixed 
by  law.  With  us,  the  first  day  only  is  fixed,  and  the  courts,  having 
commenced  on  the  day  fixed  by  law,  hold  on  as  long  as  the  conve- 
nience of  the  occasion  requires. 

In  early  ages  the  whole  year  was  one  continued  term.  After  the 
introduction  of  Christianity  among  the  western  nations  of  Europe, 
the  governments  ordained  that  their  courts  should  be  always  open, 
for  the  administration  of  justice;  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things, 
of  showing  their  disapprobation  of  the  heathen  governments,  by 
whom  the  dies  fasti  et  nefasti  were  carefully,  and  as  they  thought, 
superstitiously  regarded.  In  the  course  of  time,  however,  the  church 
interfered ;  and  prevailed  to  rescue  certain  seasons  of  the  year,  which 
it  deemed  holy  time,  such  as  Christmas  and  Easter,  &c.  from  the 
agitations  of  forensic  discussion.  The  necessities  of  rural  labor  af- 
terwards added  the  harvest  months  to  the  number  of  the  vacations. 
The  vacations  were  thus  carried  out  of  the  year,  and  what  was  left 
was  term.  Thus,  even  with  regard  to  the  common  law  courts,  the 
provisions  respecting  terms  were  made,  not  so  much  for  creating 
terms  as  creating  vacations.  And  for  this  reason  it  probably  is,  that 
as  well  the  termination  as  the  commencement  of  the  term  should  be 
established  by  law. 

In  respect  to  the  spiritual  courts,  no  such  positive  regulations,  as 
far  as  I  can  learn,  appear  to  have  been  made.  Their  jurisdiction  is 
one  which  seems  necessarily  to  require  more  or  less  of  occasional 
as  well  as  stated  exercise.  The  bishop's  jurisdiction,  over  wills 
and  administrations,  was  not  local,  but  personal.  Hence  he  might 
exercise  it,  not  only  when  he  pleased,  but  where  he  pleased;  within 
the  limits  of  his  diocese,  or  without.  He  might  grant  letters  of  ad- 
ministration, for  instance,  while  without  the  local  limits  over  which 
his  jurisdiction  extends,  because  it  is  a  personal  authority  which  the 
law  appoints  him  to  exercise.  "  The  power  of  granting  probates  is 
not  local,  but  is  annexed  to  the  person  of  the  archbishop,  or  bishop; 
and  therefore  a  bishop,  or  the  commissary  of  a  bishop,  while  absent 
from  his  diocese,  may  grant  probate  of  wills,  respecting  property 
within  the  same;  or  if  an  archbishop,  or  bishop,  of  a  province  or  see 
in  Ireland  happens  to  be  in  England,  he  may  grant  probate  of  wills 
relative  to  effects  within  his  province  or  diocese."  (Toller,  66. 
4.  Burn.  285.) 

Notwithstanding  this,  however,  the  canons  ordain,  that  the  ordi- 
naries shall  appoint  proper  places  and  times,  for  the  keeping  of  their 
courts;  such  as  shall  be  convenient  for  those  who  are  to  make  their 
appearance  there;  this  is  for  the  benefit  of  suitors.  The  object  is 
that  there  may  be  some  certain  times,  and  places,  when  and  where 
persons  having  business  to  be  transacted  may  expect  to  find  the 
judge;  and  it  by  no  means  necessarily  takes  away  the  power  of  trans- 
acting business  at  other  times  and  places.     The  ordaining  of  such  a 


152 

rule  plainly  shows,  that  before  it  was  made,  these  judges  held  their 
courts  when  and  where  they  pleased,  and  only  when  and  where  they 
pleased. 

If  we  recur  again  to  the  history  of  this  Commonwealth,  we  shall 
find,  that  what  necessity  or  convenience  had  established  in  England, 
the  same  necessity  or  convenience  soon  established  here. 

By  the  colony  charter,  no  provision  was  made  for  a  court  for  the 
probate  of  wills  and  granting  administrations.  In  1 639  it  was  or- 
dained, that  there  should  be  records  kept,  of  all  wills,  administra- 
tions, and  inventories.  (An.  Ch.  43.) — In  1649  an  act  was  passed 
requiring  wills  to  be  proved  at  the  county  court,  which  should  next 
be  after  thirty  days  from  the  death  of  the  party;  and  that  adminis- 
tration should  be  there  taken,  &c.  (Ibid  204.) 

These  county  courts  were  courts  of  common  law  jurisdiction,  and 
were  holden  at  stated  terms.  But  experience  seems  soon  to  have 
shown,  that  from  the  nature  of  probate  jurisdiction,  its  exercise 
could  not  be  conveniently  confined  to  stated  terms;  for  in  1652,  an 
act  was  passed,  authorising  two  magistrates,  with  the  recorder  of  the 
county  court,  to  allow  and  approve  of  wills,  and  grant  administrations; 
the  clerk  to  cause  the  will  or  administration  to  be  recorded.  (Ibid.  204.) 
The  reason  of  passing  this  act  is  obvious.  The  county  court  con- 
sisted of  many  magistrates.  They  assembled  to  form  a  court,  only 
at  stated  terms.  On  this  court  the  law  had  conferred  the  powers  of 
probate  of  wills  and  granting  administrations;  and  like  other  busi- 
ness it  could  of  course  oniy  be  transacted  at  stated  terms.  This 
was  found  to  be  an  inconvenience,  and  the  law  which  I  have  cited 
was  passed  to  remedy  it.  So  that  instead  of  confining  the  exercise 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  these  courts  to  stated  terms,  we  find  the  law 
has  done  exactly  the  contrary.  Not  only  the  analogy  which  they 
bear  with  other  courts  of  similar  jurisdiction,  but  our  own  history, 
and  the  early  enactments  of  the  colonial  legislature  all  conspire  to 
refute  the  notions  which  have  been  advanced — I  cannot  but  think 
somewhat  incautiously  advanced — on  this  occasion. 

The  provisions  of  the  constitution,  requiring  judges  of  probate  to 
hold  their  courts  on  certain  fixed  days,  is  perfectly  and  strictly  con- 
sistent nevertheless,  with  the  occasional  exercise  of  their  powers  at 
other  times.  The  law  has  had  two  objects,  in  this  respect;  distinct, 
indeed,  but  consistent.  One  is  that  there  should  be  certain  fixed  days, 
when  it  should  be  the  duty  of  the  judges  to  attend  to  the  business 
of  their  offices,  and  the  applications  of  suitors;  the  other,  that  they 
might,  when  occasion  required,  perform  such  duties,  and  attend  to 
such  applications  on  other  days.  The  learned  Managers  seem  to 
have  regarded  these  provisions  of  law  as  repugnant,  whereas  they 
appear  to  us  to  consist  perfectly  well  together. 

If  it  were  possible,  sir,  that  we  were  still  mistaken  in  all  this, 
there  is  yet  the  provision  of  the  special  law  of  1806,  which  would 
seem  to  put  an  end  to  this  part  of  the  case.  This  statute  has  been 
already  stated;  its  terms  are  express,  and  its  object  plain  beyond  all 
doubt  or  ambiguity.  Not  only  does  this  act,  of  itself,  afford  the 
most  complete  justification  to  the  Respondent  in  this  case,  but  it 
proves  also,  either  that  the  Legislature  or  the  learned  Managers 
have  misunderstood  the  requisition  of  the  constitution  in  regard  to 


153 

fixed  days  for  holding  probate  courts.  My  colleagues  have  put  this 
part  of  the  argument  beyond  the  power  of  any  answer.  I  leave  it 
where  they  left  it. 

With  respect  to  notice  to  parties,  I  have  already  said  that  it  is  not 
at  all  proved,  or  pretended  to  be  proved,  that  there  was  any  per- 
son entitled  to  notice,  who  did  not  receive  it.  It  would  be  absurd 
and  preposterous  now  to  call  on  the  Respondent  to  give  positive 
proof  of  notice  to  all  persons  concerned.  As  it  was  his  duty  to  give 
such  notice,  it  is  to  be  presumed  he  did  give  it,  until  the  contrary 
appear.  Besides,  as  no  omission  to  give  notice  is  stated  in  the  arti- 
cle, as  a  fact  rendering  the  court  illegal,  how  is  he  expected  to  come 
here  prepared  to  prove  notice  ? 

I  have  little  to  add,  sir,  to  what  my  learned  colleague  who  imme- 
diately preceded  me  has  said  respecting  the  necessity  of  the  regis- 
ter's attending  these  special  courts. — One  of  the  learned  Managers, 
if  I  mistake  not,  (Mr.  Shaw)  has  said,  that  the  statute  of  1806, 
which  requires  notice  to  parties,  requires  notice  also  to  the  register. 
I  see  no  sort  of  reason  for  such  a  construction  of  the  act.  The 
words  are,  that  the  judge  may  appoint  such  times  and  places  for 
holding  his  court  as  he  shall  deem  expedient,  giving  public  notice 
thereof,  or  notifying  all  concerned,  and  has  no  relation  to  the  officers 
of  the  court.  Neither  the  register,  nor  the  crier,  nor  the  door  keep- 
er, is,  I  should  imagine,  within  this  province;  and  yet  I  suppose  one 
to  be  as  much  within  it  as  the  other. 

The  presence  of  the  register  cannot  be  essential  to  the  existence 
of  the  court,  any  more  than  the  presence  of  the  clerk  is  essential 
to  the  existence  of  any  other  court.  Like  other  courts,  the  court  of 
probate  has  its  clerk,  called  a  register,  but  he  is  no  more  part  of  the 
court,  than  the  clerk  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  is  a  component 
part  of  that  court. 

No  provision  appears  to  have  been  made  by  the  Province  laws 
for  the  appointment  of  a  register.  The  ordinary  having  the  whole 
power  over  the  subject  of  the  probate  of  wills  and  granting  adminis- 
trations, might  allow  a  clerk  or  register  to  his  surrogate,  or  not,  at 
his  pleasure.  It  was  necessary  of  course  that  records  should  be 
kept,  but  this  might  be  done  by  the  judge  himself,  as  some  other 
magistrates  keep  their  own  records.  There  are  certain  statutes 
which  speak  of  the  register's  office,  but  which  seem  only  to  mean 
the  place  where  the  records  are  kept.  They  contain  no  provision 
for  the  appointment  of  such  an  officer,  nor  any  description  of  his 
duties.  (4.  W.  and  M.  ch.  2.)  It  appears,  as  I  am  informed,  by  the 
Suffolk  probate  records,  that  a  register  was  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor, by  virtue  of  his  power  as  Supreme  Ordinary,  immediately  af- 
ter the  issuing  of  the  Provincial  charter.  The  first  provision  made 
by  law  for  this  officer,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  contained  in  the  statute 
of  1784;  (vol.  1.  page  155)  and  the  duties  of  the  officer  are  well 
described  in  that  act.  '  He  is  to  be  the  register  of  wills  and  letters 
of  administration,  and  to  be  keeper  of  the  records.  His  signature 
or  assent  is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  no  act  whatever.  He  is  to 
record  official  papers,  and  to  keep  the  records  and  documents  which 
belong  to  the  office. 
20 


154 

It  is  quite  manifest,  from  the  laws  made  under  the  charter,  as  well 
as  those  enacted  since  the  adoption  of  the  present  government,  that 
the  presence  of  the  register  has  not  been  essential  to  the  existence 
of  a  legal  probate  court — the  proof  of  this  is,  that  certain  acts  or 
things,  by  these  statutes,  may  be  done  by  the  judge  without  the  reg- 
ister. By  6  of  Geo.  1.  ch.  3.  it  is  provided,  that  persons  to  take  an 
inventory  of  one  deceased,  shall  be  appointed  and  sworn  by  the 
Judge  of  probate,  if  the  estate  be  in  the  town  where  he  dwells,  or  within 
ten  miles  thereof;  otherwise  by  a  justice  of  the  peace.  (P.  L.  222.) 
By  4.  Geo.  2.  ch.  3.  appraisers  are  to  be  sworn  by  the  judge,  if  the 
estate  be  within  ten  miles  of  his  dwelling  house.     (lb.  286.) 

By  the  act  of  March  1784,  when  a  minor  lives  more  than  ten 
miles  from  the  Judge's  dwelling  house,  his  choice  may  be  certified  to 
the  judge  by  a  justice  of  the  peace. 

These  several  laws  plainly  contemplate  the  performance  of  cer- 
tain acts  by  the  judge,  not  at  probate  courts  holden  at  stated  times, 
and  without  the  presence  or  assistance  of  the  register. 

And  now,  sir,  I  have  finally  to  remark,  on  the  subject  of  holding 
these  special  courts,  the  Respondent  is  proved  to  have  followed  the 
practice  which  he  found  established  in  the  office  when  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  it.  The  existence  of  this  practice  is  proved,  beyond  all 
doubt  or  controversy,  by  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Prescott. 

As  to  the  holding  of  special  courts,  therefore,  the  defendant  rests 
his  justification,  on  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  general  principle 
of  law,  on  the  express  provision  of  the  statute,  and  the  usage,  which 
has  been  proved  to  exist  before  and  at  the  time  when  he  came  into 
the  office. 

The  charge,  Mr.  President,  in  the  first  article,  for  taking  illegal 
fees,  has  been  fully  considered  by  other  counsel.  I  need  not  detain 
the  Court  by  further  comment.  It  is  true,  that  for  what  is  called  a 
set  of  administration  papers,  the  Respondent  received  in  this  case 
five  dollars  fifty-eight  cents.  It  is  true  also,  that  for  the  same  busi- 
ness, done  at  a  stated  court,  the  fees  would  have  boen  but  three 
dollars  and  sixty  cents.  The  reason  for  this  difference  is  fully  stat- 
ed in  the  defendant's  answer.  But  it  is  also  true,  that  the  usual 
sum  at  stated  courts,  viz.  three  dollars  and  sixty  cents,  is  made  up 
by  the  insertion  of  fees  for  sundry  services  not  specified  in  the  fee 
bill.  Indeed,  the  learned  Managers  have  not,  as  has  been  so  often 
before  observed,  even  yet  told  us  what  would  have  been  the  precise 
amount  of  legal  fees  in  this  case.  They  appear  to  be  marvellously 
shy  of  figures.  If  the  Court  adopt  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Man 
agers,  that  no  fees  are  due,  where  none  are  specially  provided,  and 
that  for  receiving  fees  in  such  cases  an  officer  is  impeachable,  then 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Respondent  may  be  impeached  and  con- 
victed, for  his  conduct  in  regard  to  every  administration  which  he 
has  granted  for  fifteen  years;  and  there  is  as  little  doubt  that,  on  that 
ground  any  judge  of  probate  in  the  Commonwealth  is  impeachable; 
as  must  be  well  known  to  every  member  of  this  Court,  whether 
they  suffer  it  to  be  proved  here  or  not. 

It  is  utterly  impossible  to  know,  by  this  article  itself,  in  what  it 
was  intended  to  charge  the  Respondent  with  having  received  illegal 


155 

fees. — Was  it  for  the  order  of  notice? — But  the  statute  allows  no 
fee  for  that.  Was  it  for  granting  administration? — But  it  is  not 
stated  whether  it  was  a  litigated  case  or  not,  and  therefore  it  cannot 
be  known  what  he  might  lawfully  receive. 

It  is  not  denied,  however,  that  every  paper  executed  by  the  judge, 
in  this  case,  and  every  service  performed  by  him,  was  proper  and 
necessary  for  the  occasion.  Even  the  learned  Managers  have  not 
contended  that  anything  could  be  dispensed  with.  If,  therefore,  the 
amount  had  not  exceeded  the  usual  sum,  it  would  seem  past  all  con- 
troversy, that  the  Respondent  stood  justified,  if  he  is  right  in  the 
general  grounds  which  have  been  assumed.  The  question  then  is, 
as  to  the  right  to  the  additional  two  dollars.  And  this,  I  apprehend, 
stands  on  precisely  the  same  ground,  as  his  right  to  fees  for  services 
not  set  down  in  the  fee  bill,  viz;  on  the  ground  of  a  quantum  meruit, 
or  reasonable  compensation  for  labor  performed.  This  special  court 
was  holden  expressly  for  the  benefit  of  Tarbel,  and  at  his  instance 
and  request.  He  is  charged  only  with  the  necessary  and  unavoida- 
ble expenses  of  the  court;  expenses  which  must  be  borne,  either  by 
the  judge  himself,  or  the  party  for  whose  benefit  they  were  incurred. 
It  was  not  so  much  an  extraordinary  compensation  to  the  judge,  but 
a  reimbursement  of  expenses  actually  incurred  by  him.  Here 
again  he  is  found  only  to  have  followed  the  established  practice  of 
the  office.  He  has  done  no  more  than  his  predecessor  had  done 
It  is  clearly  proved,  that  that  predecessor  did  habitually  hold  these 
special  courts  on  request,  and  that  the  necessary  expenses  of  pro- 
ceeding therein  before  him  did  exceed  those  of  similar  proceedings 
at  the  stated  courts.  There  can  be  no  complaint,  in  this  case,  of 
the  amount.  If  he  had  a  right  to  receive  anything,  it  must  be  con- 
ceded he  did  not  receive  too  much.  A  practice  of  this  sort  may 
lead  to  inconvenience;  possibly  to  abuse;  but  it  did  not  originate 
with  the  Respondent,  nor  does  it  appear  that  abuse  has  followed  it, 
in  his  hands.  If  he  were  authorised  to  hold  these  special  courts, 
and  rf  they  were  necessarily  attended  with  some  augmentation  of 
expense,  it  would  seem  perfectly  reasonable  that  those  for  whom  the 
expense  was  incurred  should  defray  it.  The  books  teach  us,  that 
"  an  officer  who  takes  a  reward,  which  has  been  usual  in  certain 
cases,  for  the  more  diligent  or  expeditious  performance  of  his  duty, 
cannot  be  said  to  be  guilty  of  extortion;  for  otherwise  it  would  be 
impossible,  in  many  cases,  to  have  the  law  executed  with  success." 
(Bac.  Jlbr.  "Extortion")  These  sums  were  paid  voluntarily.  The 
Respondent  in  no  proper  sense  demanded  them. — He  did  not  refuse 
to  do  his  official  duty  till  they  were  paid.  So  of  those  sums  paid 
for  services  not  mentioned  in  the  fee  bill.  Several  of  these  things 
might  have  been  done  by  the  party  himself,  or  his  counsel;  such  as 
drawing  petition,  bond,  &c.  Yet  it  was  usual  to  have  these  papers 
prepared  at  the  probate  office,  and  to  pay  for  them,  together  with 
the  other  expenses.  This  being  the  usual  course  of  things,  and  the 
party  complying  with  it,  without  objection,  and  paying  voluntarily, 
there  can  be  no  reason,  I  think,  to  call  it  extortion.  When  the 
party  applied,  in  this  case,  for  administration  papers,  he  must  be 
supposed  to  have  applied  for  what  was  usual.  He  received  what 
everybody  else  had  received  for  fifteen  years,  and  he  paid  for  what 


156 

he  received  at  the  customary  rates,  without  objection.  It  ought  to 
be  considered  therefore  as  a  voluntary  payment. 

This  differs  this  case  altogether  from  that  cited  from  Coke.  There 
the  party  refused  to  do  an  official  act,  till  an  illegal  sum  was  paid. 
It  was  an  act  which  the  party  had  a  right  to  have  performed — to  have 
it  then  performed — and  to  have  it  performed  for  a  stated  fee — refusing 
to  do  his  duty,  in  this  respect,  till  other  fees  were  paid,  the  officer 
doubtless  was  guilty  of  extortion.  But  in  this  case  the  money  was 
paid  voluntarily  for  services  rendered  voluntarily.  Most  of  the  ser- 
vices were  not,  strictly  speaking,  official  services.  As  before  observ- 
ed, the  petition,  bond,  &c.  might  have  been  prepared  elsewhere,  if 
the  party  had  so  chosen.  If  he  had  so  chosen,  and  had  produced 
those  papers,  regularly  prepared  and  executed,  and  the  judge  had 
then  refused  him  a  grant  of  administration,  until  he  had,  nevertheless, 
purchased  a  set  of  these  papers  out  of  the  probate  office,  then  this 
case  would  have  resembled  the  one  quoted.  As  the  facts  are,  I 
think  there  is  no  resemblance. 

I  have,  thus  far,  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  Respondent's  con- 
duct, in  relation  to  fees,  was  legal.  If  we  have  failed  in  this,  the  next 
question  is,  whether  his  conduct  be  so  clearly  illegal,  as  to  satisfy 
the  Court  that  it  must  have  proceeded  from  corrupt,  motives.  And 
it  is  to  this  part  of  our  case,  that  we  supposed  the  evidence  of  what 
had  been  usual  in  other  courts,  and  thought  to  be  legal  by  other 
judges  would  be  strictly  applicable  and  highly  important. 

It  was  certainly  our  belief,  that  as  the  Respondent  is  accused  of 
receiving  illegal  and  excessive  fees,  in  cases  where  fees  are  not 
limited  by  any  positive  law,  the  usage  and  practice  of  other  judges, 
in  similar  cases,  known  to  the  whole  Commonwealth,  and  continued 
for  many  years,  would  be  evidence  on  which  the  Respondent 
might  rely  to  rebut  the  accusation  of  intentional  wrong. — We  have 
shown  to  this  tribunal,  that  in  an  indictment  on  this  same  statute, 
in  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court,  evidence  of  this  sort  was  admitted, 
and  the  defendant  acquitted  on  the  strength  of  it.  We  had  suppos- 
ed it  a  plain  dictate  of  common  sense,  that  where  a  judge  was  ac- 
cused of  acting  contrary  to  law,  he  might  show,  if  he  could,  that  he 
acted  honestly,  though  mistakenly,  and,  to  this  end,  he  might  show 
that  other  judges  had  understood  the  law  in  the  same  way  as  he  had 
understood  it.  And  if  he  were  able  to  show,  not  only  that  one 
judge,  but  many,  and  indeed,  all  judges  had  uniformly  understood 
the  law  as  he  himself  had,  it  would  amount  to  a  full  defence.  The 
learned  Managers  have  opposed  the  introduction  of  this  evidence; 
and  have  prevailed  on  this  court  to  reject  it.  Setting  out  with  the 
proposition,  that,  by  law,  the  Respondent  could  receive  no  fees, 
where  none  are  expressly  provided  by  statute,  they  have  followed 
up  this  doctrine  to  the  conclusion,  that  if  fees  have  been  taken  in 
any  such  case  by  the  Respondent,  he  must  be  convicted,  although 
he  should  be  able  to  show,  as  he  is  able  to  show,  that  every  court, 
and  every  judge  in  the  State  has  supposed  the  law  to  be  otherwise, 
than  the  Managers  now  assert  it,  and  have  uniformly  acted  upon 
that  supposition.  I  am  not,  sir,  about  to  enter  into  another  discus- 
sion, on  this  point.  I  am  persuaded  it  would  be  fruitless.  The 
questions  which  we  proposed  to  put  to  the  witnesses  are  in  writing, 


157 

and  therefore  cannot  easily  be  misrepresented.  The  Court  has,  on 
the  objection  of  the  Managers,  overruled  these  questions,  and  shut 
out  the  evidence.  As  a  matter  decided  in  the  cause,  and  for  the  pur- 
poses of  the  cause,  we  must,  of  course,  submit  to  the  decision.  Still 
the  question  recurs,  if  the  known  usage  and  practice  of  the  courts, 
offered  no  rule  or  guide,  by  which  the  Respondent  was  to  direct  his 
conduct,  in  relation  to  fees  for  services  not  enumerated  in  the  fee 
bill — what  rule  was  to  direct  him?  What  is  the  law,  which  he  has 
broken  ?  We  ask  for  the  rule,  which  ought  to  have  governed  his  con- 
duct, and  has  not  governed  it;  we  receive  for  answer  nothing  intelligi- 
ble but  this,  that  where  the  statute  has  not  expressly  given  fees,  no  fees 
are  due,  and  it  is  illegal  and  impeachable  to  receive  them.  If  the  Court 
should  be  of  that  opinion,  a  case  is  made  out  against  the  Respondent. 
If  it  should  not  be  of  that  opinion,  as  we  trust  it  will  not,  then  we 
submit  that  no  case  has  been  made  out  against  him,  on  this  charge. 

As  to  the  charge  of  having  refused  to  give  Tarbell  an  account  of 
items  or  particulars  of  the  fees  demanded,  it  is  enough  to  say  the 
charge  is  not  proved.  On  his  cross  examination  the  witness  would 
not  state  that  he  asked  for  items  or  particulars.  He  appears  simply 
to  have  wished  a  general  voucher,  to  show  what  sums  he  had  paid 
for  expenses  in  the  probate  office,  and  to  have  been  told  that  such 
voucher  was  not  necessary,  as  the  sums  would  be  of  course  allowed 
in  his  account. 

I  now  ask,  sir,  where  is  the  proof  of  corruption,  in  relation  to  any 
of  the  matters  charged  in  this  first  article  ?  Where  is  the  moral 
turpitude,  which  alone  ought  to  subject  the  Respondent  to  punish- 
ment? Is  there  anything  in  the  case  which  looks  like  injustice  or 
oppression  ?  As  to  the  special  courts,  holden  for  the  convenience 
of  the  party,  no  injury  arose  from  them  to  anybody.  The  witness 
himself  says  they  were  a  great  accommodation  to  him,  and  saved 
the  estate  much  money.  One  learned  Manager  has  said  these 
courts  may  lead  to  inconvenience  and  abuse.  He  has  taxed  his  in- 
genuity to  conjecture,  rather  than  to  show,  what  possible  evils  might 
hereafter  arise  from  them.  Yet  he  does  this  with  the  statute  open 
before  him,  which  expressly  authorises  these  courts,  and  the  repeal 
of  which  would  seem  to  be  the  proper  remedy  to  relieve  him  from 
his  apprehensions. 

On  the  whole,  sir,  I  trust  that  the  Respondent  has  been  able  to 
give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  everything  contained  in  the  first  article. 
That  he  is  not  only  not  legally  proved  to  be  guilty,  but  that  his  con- 
duct was  in  all  respects  unblamable  and  inoffensive; — and  that  he 
will  go  from  this  cause,  not  only  acquitted  of  the  charges  in  the  ar- 
ticle, but  also,  without  having  suffered,  in  his  reputation,  from  the 
investigation  which  it  has  occasioned. 

Mr.  President,  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  on  the  first 
article,  are  generally  applicable  to  the  four  succeeding,  and  render 
it  unnecessary  to  comment  on  those  articles,  separately  and  partic- 
ularly. 

The  sixth  article  turns  out  to  be  so  little  supported  by  any  proof, 
that  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  add  to  what  has  been  said  upon 
it.  The  testimony  of  Dr.  Prescott,  and  the  date  of  the  letter  pro- 
duced, set  this  long  forgotten  occurrence  in  its  true  light. 

o 


158 

The  seventh  article  appears  to  me  to  be  a  mere  nullity.  It  charges 
no  official  misconduct  whatever.  The  learned  Managers,  I  suppose, 
are  of  the  same  opinion,  otherwise  they  would  have  been  content 
with  our  admission  of  the  article,  as  it  stands,  and  not  have  con- 
tended so  ardently,  for  the  privilege  of  proving  what  was  not  stated. 
I  have  found  myself,  sir,  more  than  once  mistaken,  in  the  course  of 
this  trial,  but  have  not  felt  more  sensible,  at  my  own  mistakes,  on 
any  occasion,  than  when  I  found  myself  wrong  in  supposing  that 
neither  the  learned  Managers,  nor  any  other  lawyers,  could  be  found 
to  contend,  that  in  a  criminal  case  more  could  be  proved  against  a 
defendant,  than  had  been  stated;  and  that  it  was  not  enough  for 
such  defendant  to  admit  the  truth  of  the  facts  in  the  written  allega- 
tion against  him,  precisely  as  they  stood,  and  to  demand  the  judg- 
ment of  the  court  thereon.  The  constitution  says  that  every  man's 
offence  shall  be  fully  and  plainly,  substantially  and  formally  described 
and  set  forth.  The  learned  Managers  seem  so  to  construe  this  pro- 
vision, as  that,  nevertheless,  if  facts  be  not  alleged  which  show  any 
offence  at  all  to  have  been  committed,  still  other  facts  may  be  found, 
under  the  words  unlawfully  and  corruptly,  which  shall  amount  to  an 
offence.  A  commentary  this,  sir,  on  the  constitution  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, of  which  I  imagine  the  profession  generally  will  not  be 
emulous  of  dividing  the  credit  with  the  Honorable  Managers. 

This  seventh  article  charges  the  Respondent  with  no  misbehavior 
as  a  judge.  The  only  offence  imputed  to  him  is  one  which  he  is 
said  to  have  committed  as  an  attorney.  These  over-shadowing  words, 
"  unlawfully  and  corruptly,"  beneath  the  protection  of  which  the 
learned  Managers  have  sought  to  shelter  themselves,  are  applied  to 
the  Respondent's  conduct  simply  as  an  attorney  at  law,  and  not  as 
judge  of  probate. 

It  is  proved,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  Respondent  performed  cer- 
tain merely  clerical  labor  for  a  guardian,  for  which  he  was  paid  a 
reasonable  and  moderate  compensation.  The  sum  thus  paid  him 
was  allowed,  and  as  we  suppose  justly  allowed,  in  the  subsequent 
settlement  of  the  guardian's  account. 

The  eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  eleventh,  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  arti- 
cles have  been  fully  considered  by  my  colleagues,  and  I  will  not 
detain  the  Court  with  further  remarks  on  those  articles. 

It  is  the  twelfth,  of  these  articles,  sir,  on  which  the  learned  Mana- 
gers seem  most  confidently  to  rely.  Whatever  becomes  of  the  rest 
of  the  case,  here,  at  least,  there  is  thought  to  be  a  tenable  ground — 
Here  is  one  verdant  spot,  where  impeachment  can  flourish;  a  sort 
of  Oasis,  smiling  amid  the  general  desolation,  which  the  law  and 
the  evidence  have  spread  round  the  residue  of  this  accusation. 

I  confess,  sir,  that  I  approach  to  the  consideration  of  this  article, 
not  without  some  apprehension.  But  that  apprehension  arises  from 
nothing  in  the  real  nature  of  the  charge,  or  in  the  evidence  by 
which  it  is  supported.  My  apprehension  and  alarm  arise  from  this; 
that  in  a  criminal  trial,  on  a  most  solemn  and  important  occasion, 
so  much  weight  should  be  given  to  mere  coloring,  and  declamation, 
under  the  form  of  a  criminal  accusation.  In  my  judgment,  sir, 
there  is  serious  cause  of  alarm,  when  in  a  court  of  this  character, 
accusations  are  brought  forward,  so  exceedingly  loose  and  indefi- 


159 

nite,  and  arguments  are  urged  in  support  of  them,  so  little  resem- 
bling what  we  are  accustomed  to  hear  in  the  ordinary  courts  of 
criminal  jurisdiction. 

The  offence,  in  this  article,  whatever  it  be,  instead  of  being 
charged  and  stated  in  ordinary  legal  language,  is  thrown  into  the 
form  of  a  narrative.  A  story,  taken  from  the  mouth  of  a  heated, 
angry,  and  now  contradicted  witness,  is  written  down  at  large,  with 
every  imaginable  circumstance  of  aggravation,  likely  to  strike  un- 
distinguishing  minds;  and  this  story,  thus  told,  is  the  very  form  in 
which  the  article  is  brought.  Here  we  have,  in  the  article  itself,  a 
narrative  of  all  the  evidence;  we  have  a  dialogue  between  the  par- 
ties, are  favored  so  far  as  to  be  shown,  by  marks  of  quotation,  what 
sentiments  and  sentences  belong  to  the  respective  parties  in  that 
dialogue.  All  convenient  epithets,  and  expletives  are  inserted  in 
this  dialogue.  We  find  the  "  argent  and  repeated"  demand  of  the 
Respondent  for  fees.  We  perceive  also  that  he  is  made  to  lead  the 
conversation,  on  all  occasions.  He  proposed  to  advise  and  instruct; 
he  proposed  to  allow  the  sum  in  the  account;  and  it  was,  again,  on  his 
proposition  so  to  insert  it,  that  it  was  paid.  He  is  represented  as 
wanting,  in  manners,  and  decorum,  as  well  as  in  official  integrity. 
It  is  said  he  overheard  a  conversation;  and  that  therefore  he  prepar- 
ed to  give  his  advice,  before  it  was  asked.  In  short,  sir,  this  article 
contains  whatever  is  most  likely  to  cause  the  Respondent  to  be  con- 
victed, before  he  is  heard.  I  do  most  solemnly  protest  against  this 
mode  of  bringing  forward  criminal  charges.  I  put  it  to  the  feeling 
of  every  honorable  man,  whether  he  does  not  instinctively  revolt 
from  such  a  proceeding  ? — In  a  government  so  much  under  the  do- 
minion of  public  opinion,  and  in  a  case  in  which  public  feeling  is  so 
easily  excited,  I  appeal  to  every  man  of  an  honorable  and  indepen- 
dent mind,  whether  it  be  not  the  height  of  injustice  to  send  forth 
charges  against  a  public  officer,  accompanied  with  all  these  circum- 
stances of  aggravation  and  exasperation?  Here  the  evidence,  as 
yet  altogether  ex  parte,  the  story  told  by  a  willing,  if  not  a  prejudiced, 
witness,  goes  forth  with  the  charge,  embodied  in  the  charge  itself, 
without  any  distinction  whatever  between  what  is  meant  to  be  charg- 
ed as  an  offence,  and  the  evidence  which  is  to  support  the  charge. 
For  my  own  part,  sir,  I  can  conceive  of  nothing  more  unjust. 
Would  it  be  tolerated  for  one  moment  in  a  court  of  law,  I  beg  to 
ask,  that  a  prosecutor,  departing  from  all  the  usual  forms  of  accusa- 
tion, should  tell  his  own  story,  in  his  own  way,  mix  up  his  evidence 
with  his  charges,  and  his  own  inferences  with  his  evidence,  so  that 
the  accusation,  the  evidence,  and  the  argument,  should  all  go  to- 
gether?— A  judge  would  well  deserve  impeachment  and  conviction 
who  should  suffer  such  an  indictment  to  proceed. 

In  this  case,  the  whole  matter  might  have  been  stated  in  five  lines. 
It  is  simply  this,  and  nothing  more,  viz;  that  the  Respondent  wish- 
ing, as  an  attorney,  to  obtain  certain  fees  from  a  guardian,  promised, 
if  they  were  paid,  to  allow  them  in  the  guardianship  account,  as 
judge;  and  being  paid  he  did  so  allow  them.  This  is  the  whole 
substance  and  essence  of  the  charge. 

Notwithstanding  our  entire  confidence  in  this  Court,  we  cannot 
but  know  that  the  Respondent  comes  to  his  trial  on  this  article  un- 


160 

der  the  greatest  disadvantages.  There  is  not  a  member  of  the  Court, 
nor  a  reading  man  in  the  community,  who  has  not  read  this  charge, 
and  thereby  seen  at  once  the  accusation,  and  the  evidence,  which 
was  to  support  it.  The  whole  story  is  told,  with  all  the  minute  cir- 
cumstances, and  no  ground  is  left,  for  the  reservation  of  opinion,  or 
whereupon  charity  itself  can  withhold  its  condemnation.  Far  be  it 
from  me,  sir,  to  impute  this  to  design.  I  know  not  the  cause;  but 
so  far  as  the  Respondent  is  concerned,  I  know  it  had  been  just  as 
fair  and  favorable  to  him,  that  the  orginal  ex  parte  affidavit,  upon 
which  the  article  was  founded,  should  have  been  headed  as  No.  12, 
and  inserted  among  the  articles  of  impeachment.  This,  sir,  is  the 
true  ground  of  the  alarm  which  I  feel,  in  regard  to  this  charge;  an 
alarm,  I  confess,  not  diminished  by  perceiving  that  this  article  is  so 
great  a  favorite  with  the  learned  Managers;  for  when  obliged  to  give 
-up  one  and  another  of  their  accusations,  they  have  asked  us,  with 
an  air  of  confidence  and  exultation,  whether  we  expect  them  to  give 
up  the  twelfth  article  also. 

I  will  now,  sir,  with  your  permission,  proceed  to  consider  whether 
this  article  states  any  legal  offence.  Stripped  of  everything  but  what 
is  material,  it  appears  to  me  to  amount  to  no  more  than  this;  viz.  t. 
That  the  Respondent  gave  professional  advice  to  a  guardian,  about  the 
concerns  of  his  ward,  and  received  fees  for  it.  2.  That  he  allowed 
those  fees  in  the  guardianship  account.  If  this  be  the  substance  of 
the  article,  then  the  question  follows  the  division  which  I  have  men- 
tioned, and  is,  1.  Whether  he  had  aright  to  give  such  advice,  and  to 
be  paid  for  it;  and,  2.  Whether  he  had  a  right  to  allow  the  sum  so 
paid  in  the  guardian's  account.  I  think  these  are  the  only  questions 
to  be  considered.  It  cannot  be  material,  certainly,  whether  Ware, 
the  guardian,  paid  the  fee  willingly  or  unwillingly.  The  fact  is  true, 
that  the  Respondent  received  it.  If  he  had  no  right  to  it,  then  he 
must  take  the  consequence;  if  he  had  a  right  to  it,  then  there  was 
nothing  wrong  but  Ware's  want  of  promptitude  in  paying  it.  Nor 
is  it  of  any  importance,  supposing  him  to  be  right  in  allowing  this 
fee  in  the  guardian's  account,  whether  he  interlined  the  charge,  in 
an  account  aVeady  drawn  out,  or  had  the  account  drawn  over,  that  it 
might  be  inserted.  Here  again,  we  find  a  circumstance  of  no  mo- 
ment in  itself,  put  forth  to  be  prominent  and  striking,  in  this  charge, 
and  likely  to  produce  an  effect.  It  is  said  the  sum  was  allowed  by 
interlineation;  as  if  the  Respondent  had  committed  one  crime  to  hide 
another,  and  had  been  guilty  of  forgery,  to  cover  up  extortion.  Sir, 
not  only  for  the  sake  of  the  Respondent,  but  for  the  sake  of  all  jus- 
tice, and  in  behalf  of  all  impartiality  and  candor,  I  cannot  too  often 
or  too  earnestly  express  my  extreme  regret,  at  the  manner  of  this 
charge.  On  a  paper  not  yet  finished  and  recorded,  what  harm  to 
make  an  alteration,  if  it  be  of  a  thing  in  itself  proper  to  be  done? 
Is  it  not  done  every  day,  in  every  court? — Not  only  affidavits,  pro 
cesses,  &c.  but  also  minutes,  decrees  and  judgments  of  the  Court, 
before  they  are  recorded,  are  constantly  altered  by  interlineation,  by 
the  Court  itself,  or  its  order.  The  paper  was  in  this  case  before 
the  judge.  It  had  not  been  recorded.  If  any  new  claim  had  then 
been  produced,  fit  to  be  allowed,  it  was  proper  to  allow  it,  and  cer- 
tainly not  criminal  to  insert  the  allowance  by  interlineation. 


161 

If,  sir,  the  substance  of  everything  done  by  the  Respondent  in 
this  case  was  lawful,  then  there  never  can  justly  be  a  criminal  con- 
viction, founded  on  the  mere  manner  of  doing  it;  even  though  the 
manner  were  believed  to  be  as  improper  and  indecorous  as  Ware 
would  represent  it.  There  is  therefore  no  real  inquiry,  in  this  case, 
as  I  can  perceive,  but.  whether  the  Respondent  had  a  right  to  give 
advice,  and  to  be  paid  for  it;  and  whether  he  had  a  right  to  allow  it 
in  the  account. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  sir,  had  the  Respondent  a  right  to  give 
professional  advice  to  this  guardian,  respecting  the  estate  of  his 
ward  ? 

It  has  frequently,  perhaps  as  often  as  otherwise  happened,  that 
judges  of  probate  have  been  practising  lawyers.  The  statute  book 
shows,  that  it  has  all  along  been  supposed  that  this  might  be  the 
case.  There  are  acts,  which  declare  that  in  particular,  specified 
cases,  such  as  appeals  from  their  own  judgments,  they  shall  not  act 
as  counsel;  implying  of  course  that  in  other  cases  they  are  expect- 
ed so  to  act,  if  they  see  fit.  Until  the  law  of  1818,  there  was  noth- 
ing to  prevent  them  from  being  counsel  for  executors,  administrators 
and  guardians,  as  well  as  any  other  clients.  My  colleague  who 
first  addressed  the  Court  has  fully  explained  the  history  and  state  of 
the  law  in  this  particular.  There  being  then  no  positive  prohibition, 
is  there  anything  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  prevents,  or  should 
prevent,  in  all  cases,  a  judge  of  probate  from  rendering  professional 
assistance  to  executors,  administrators  or  guardians.  I  say  in  all 
cases,  and  supposing  no  fraudulent  or  collusive  intention.  The  leg- 
islature has  now  passed  a  law  on  this  subject,  which  is  perhaps  very 
well,  as  a  general  rule,  and  now,  of  course,  binding  in  all  cases. 
Rut  before  the  passing  of  this  law,  it  can  hardly  be  contended,  that 
in  no  case  could  a  judge  of  probate  give  professional  advice  to  per- 
sons of  this  character. — I  admit,  most  undoubtedly,  sir,  that  if  a 
case  of  collusion,  or  fraud  were  proved,  it  would  deserve  impeach- 
ment. If  the  judge  and  the  guardian  conspired  to  cheat  the  ward, 
a  criminal  conviction  would  be  the  just  reward  for  both.  They  might 
go  into  utter  disgrace  together,  and  nobody  would  inquire  which  was 
the  unjust  judge,  and  which  the  fraudulent  guardian;  "which  was 
the  justice,  and  which  was  the  thief."  But  in  a  case  of  fair  and 
honest  character,  where  the  guardian  needed  professional  advice, 
and  the  judge  was  competent  to  give  it,  I  see  no  legal  objection. 
No  doubt  a  man  of  caution  and  delicacy  would  generally  be  unwil- 
ling to  render  professional  services, #  upon  the  value  of  which  he 
might  be  afterwards  called  upon  officially  to  form  an  opinion.  He 
would  not  choose  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  judging  upon  his  own 
claim.  Still  there  would  seem  to  be  no  legal  incompatibility.  He 
must  take  care  only  to  judge  right.  In  various  other  cases,  judges 
of  probate  are  or  may  be  called  on  to  make  allowances  for  moneys 
paid  to  themselves.  It  is  so  in  all  cases  of  official  fees.  It  might 
be  so,  also,  in  the  case  of  a  private  debt  due  from  the  estate  of  a 
ward  to  a  judge  of  probate.  If,  in  this  very  case,  there  had  been  a 
previous  debt  due  from  Ware's  ward  to  the  Respondent,  might  he 
not  have  asked  Ware  to  pay  it? — Nay,  might  he  not  have  "demand- 
ed "  it:  might  he  not  even  have  ventured  to  make  an  "urgent  and 
21  o* 


162 

repeated  request ,"  for  it? — And  if  he  had  been  so  fortunate  as  to  ob- 
tain it,  might  he  not  have  allowed  it  in  Ware's  guardianship  account? 
— And  although  he  had  been  presumptuous  enough  to  insert  it  by 
interlineation,  among  other  articles  in  the  account,  before  it  was  final- 
ly allowed  and  passed,  instead  of  drawing  off  a  new  account,  would 
even  this  have  been  regarded  as  flagrant  injustice,  or  high  enormi- 
ty?— Now  I  maintain,  sir,  that  the  Respondent  had  in  this  case  a 
right  to  give  professional  advice;  and  a  right  to  be  paid  for  it;  and, 
until  paid,  his  claim  was  a  debt,  due  him  from  the  ward's  estate,  which 
he  might  treat  like  any  other  debt.  He  might  receive  it,  as  a  debt, 
and  then  as  a  debt  paid  allow  it  in  the  guardian's  account. 

As  before  observed,  the  first  question  is,  whether  he  could  right- 
fully give  this  advice.  It  was  certainly  a  case  in  which  it  was 
proper  for  the  guardian  to  take  legal  advice  of  somebody.  The 
occasion  called  for  it,  and  we  find  the  estate  to  have  been  essential- 
ly benefited  by  it.  It  is  among  the  clearest  duties  of  those  who 
act  in  situations  of  trust,  to  take  legal  advice,  whenever  it  is  neces- 
sary. If  they  do  not,  and  loss  ensues,  they  themselves,  and  not 
those  whom  they  represent,  must  bear  that  loss.  There  can  be  no 
clearer  ground,  on  which  to  make  executors,  administrators,  and 
guardians  personally  liable  for  losses  which  happen  to  estates  under 
their  care,  than  negligence  in  not  obtaining  legal  advice,  when  nec- 
essary and  proper.  If,  instead  of  giving  this  fee  to  the  Respond- 
ent, the  guardian  had  given  it  to  any  other  professional  man,  would 
anybody  have  thought  it  improper? — I  presume  no  one  would. 
Then,  what  was  there,  in  the  Respondent's  situation,  which  render- 
ed it  improper  for  him  to  give  the  advice  ?  It  concerned  no  matter 
that  could  come  before  him — It  was  wholly  independent  of  any  pro- 
ceeding arisen,  or  that  could  arise,  in  his  court.  It  interfered  in  no 
way  with  his  judicial  duty,  any  more  than  it  would  have  done  to  have 

fiven  the  same  advice  to  the  ward  himself,  before  the  guardianship. 
le  had  then  as  good  right  to  give  this  advice  to  the  guardian,  as  he 
would  have  had  to  have  given  it  to  the  ward. 

And,  sir,  in  the  second  place,  I  think  it  plain,  that  if  he  had  a 
right  to  give  the  advice,  and  to  be  paid  for  it,  he  had  not  only  the 
right  but  was  bound  to  allow  it  in  the  guardian's  account.  This 
article  is  attempted  to  be  supported  altogether  by  accumulating  cir- 
cumstances, no  one  of  which  bears  resemblance  to  anything  like  a 
legal  offence.  Is  the  Respondent  to  be  convicted  for  having  given 
the  advice?  "No,"  it  is  said,  "not  that  alone,  but  he  demanded  a 
fee  for  it."  Is  he  to  be  convicted  then,  for  giving  advice,  and  for 
demanding  a  fee  for  it,  it  not  being  denied  that  it  was  a  fit  occasion 
for  somebody's  advice? — "  No,  not  convicted  for  that  alone,  but  he 
insisted  on  a  fee,  and  was  urgent,  and  pressing  for  it."  If  he  had  a 
right  to  the  fee,  might  he  not  insist  upon  it,  and  be  urgent  for  it,  till 
ihe  got  it,  without  a  violation  of  law?  "But  then  he  promised 
to  allow  it  in  the  guardian's  account,  and  obtained  it  by  means  of 
this  promise,  and  did  afterwards  allow  it."  But  if  it  ought  to  be 
paid,  and  the  guardian  paid  it,  ought  it  not  to  be  allowed  in  his  ac- 
count, and  could  it  be  improper  for  the  Respondent  to  say  he  should 
so  allow  it,  and  actually  so  to  allow  it?  "  But  did  he  not  allow  it  by 
interlineation?"     What  sort  of  interlineation?     The  account  was 


163 

before  him,  unrecorded;  this  came  forward,  as  a  new  charge:  and 
for  convenience  and  to  save  labor,  it  was  inserted  among  other 
charges,  without  a  new  draught;  and  this  is  all  the  interlineation  there 
is  in  the  case. 

I  now  ask  you,  sir — I  put  it  to  every  member  of  this  Court,  upon 
his  oath  and  his  conscience,  to  say  on  which  of  these  circumstances  the 
guilt  attaches.  Wliere  is  the  crime?  If  this  charge  had  been  carried 
to  the  account  without  interlineation,  would  the  Respondent  have  been 
guiltless  ? — If  not,  then  the  interlineation  does  not  constitute  his 
guilt.  If  the  fee  had  been  paid  to  some  one  else,  and  then  allowed,  in 
the  same  manner  it  was  allowed,  would  the  Respondent  have  been 
guiltless?  If  so,  then  the  crime  is  not  in  the  manner  of  allowing  the 
charge.  If  the  guardian  h&durged  and  pressed  for  the  Respondent's 
advice,  and  in  receiving  it  had  paid  for  it  willingly  and  cheerfully, 
and  it  had  been  properly  allowed  in  the  account,  would  the  Respon- 
dent then  have  been  guiltless?  If  so,  then  his  mere  giving  advice,  and 
taking  fees  for  it,  of  a  guardian,  does  not  constitute  his  crime.  In  this 
manner,  sir,  this  article  may  be  analyzed,  and  it  will  be  found  that 
no  one  part  of  it  contains  the  criminal  matter — and  if  there  be  crime 
in  no  one  part,  there  can  be  no  crime  in  the  whole.  It  is  not  a  case 
of  right  acts  done  with  wrong  motives,  which  sometimes  may  show 
misconduct,  all  taken  together,  although  each  circumstance  may  be 
of  itself  indifferent.  Here  is  official  corruption  complained  of. 
We  ask,  in  what  it  consists.  We  demand  to  know  the  legal  offence 
which  has  been  committed.  A  narrative  is  rehearsed  to  us,  and  we 
are  told  that  the  result  of  that  must  be  conviction;  but  on  what  legal 
grounds,  or  for  what  describable  legal  reason,  I  am  yet  at  a  loss  to 
understand. 

The  article  mentions  another  circumstance,  which,  whether  true 
or  false,  must  exceedingly  prejudice  the  Respondent,  and  yet  has  no 
just  bearing  on  the  case.  It  is  said  the  Respondent  told  Ware,  that 
if  he  would  pay  this  fee,  the  "  overseers  need  know  nothing  about 
it."  Now,  sir,  what  had  the  overseers  to  do  with  this? — no  more 
than  the  town  crier.  Those  parts  of  the  account  which  consisted 
of  expenses  incurred  in  their  neighbourhood,  were  properly  enough, 
though  not  necessarily,  subjected  to  their  examination.  They  had 
an  interest  in  having  the  account  right,  and  their  approbation  was  a 
convenient  voucher.  But  what  had  they  to  do,  with  the  propriety 
of  the  guardian's  taking  legal  advice,  for  the  benefit  of  his  ward? 
They  could  not  judge  of  it,  nor  were  they  to  approve  or  disapprove 
his  charge  for  obtaining  such  advice  Why,  then,  I  ask,  sir,  was 
this  observation  about  the  overseers  introduced,  not  only  as  evidence, 
but  into  the  body  of  the  charge  itself,  as  making  a  part  of  that  charge  ? 
What  part  of  any  known  legal  offence  does  that  observation,  or  oth- 
ers like  it,  constitute?  Nevertheless,  sir,  this  has  had  its  effect,  and 
in  my  opinion  a  most  unjust  effect. 

I  will  now,  sir,  beg  leave  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  evidence 
adduced  in  support  of  this  article.  Of  those  facts  which  I  have 
thought  alone  material,  there  is  no  doubt,  nor  about  them  any  dis- 
pute. It  is  true,  that  the  Respondent  gave  the  advice,  and  received 
the  fee,  and  allowed  it  in  the  account.  If  this  be  guilt,  he  is  guilty. 
As  to  everything  else,  in  the  articles — as  to   all  those  allegations 


164 

which  go  to  degrade  the  Respondent,  and  in  some  measure  affect  his 
reputation,  as  a  man  of  honor  and  delicacy — they  rest  on  Ware, 
and  on  Ware  alone.  Now,  sir,  I  only  ask  for  the  Respondent  the 
common  advantages  allowed  to  persons  on  trial  for  alleged  offences. 
I  only  entreat  for  him  from  this  Court  the  observance  of  those  rules 
which  prevail  on  all  other  occasions,  in  respect  to  the  construction 
to  be  given  to  evidence,  and  the  allowances  which  particular  consid- 
erations render  proper. 

It  is  proved,  that  this  witness  has  had  a  recent  misunderstanding 
with  the  Respondent,  and  that  he  comes  forward,  only  since  that 
misunderstanding,  to  bring  this  matter  into  public  notice. — Threats 
of  vengeance,  for  another  supposed  injury,  he  has  been  proved  to 
have  uttered  more  than  once. — This  consideration  alone,  should 
lead  the  Court  to  receive  his  evidence  with  great  caution,  when  he 
is  not  swearing  to  a  substantial  fact,  in  which  he  might  be  contra- 
dicted, but  to  the  manner  of  a  transaction.  Here  is  peculiar  room 
for  misrepresentation,  and  coloring,  either  from  mistake  or  design 
What  a  public  officer  does,  can  be  proved;  but  the  mere  manner,  in 
which  he  does  it,  every  word  he  may  say,  every  gesture  he  may 
make,  cannot  ordinarily  be  proved;  and  when  a  witness  comes  forth 
who  pretends  to  remember  them,  whether  he  speaks  truth  or  false- 
hood, it  is  most  difficult  to  contradict  him.  It  is  in  such  a  case 
therefore  that  a  prejudiced  witness  should  be  received  with  the  ut- 
most caution  and  distrust. 

There  is,  sir,  another  circumstance  of  great  weight. —  77m  is  a 
very  stale  complaint.  It  is  now  nearly  six  years,  since  this  transaction 
took  place.  Why  has  it  not  been  complained  of  before? — There  is 
no  new  discovery.  All  that  is  known  now,  was  known  then.  If 
Ware  thought  of  it  then,  as  he  thinks  of  it  now,  why  did  he  not 
complain  then  ?  What  has  caused  his  honest  indignation  so  long  to 
slumber,  and  what  should  cause  it  to  be  roused  only  by  a  quarrel 
with  the  Respondent? 

Let  me  ask,  sir,  what  a  grand  jury  would  say  to  a  prosecutor,  who, 
with  the  full  knowledge  of  all  the  facts,  should  have  slept  over  a 
supposed  injury  for  six  years,  and  should  then  come  forward  to  pre- 
fer an  indictment? — What  would  they  say  especially  if  they  found 
him  apparently  stimulated  by  recent  resentment,  and  prosecuting,  for 
one  supposed  ancient  injury,  with  the  heat  and  passion  excited 
by  another  supposed  recent  injury?  Sir,  they  would  justly  look  on 
his  evidence  with  suspicion,  and  would  undoubtedly  throw  out  his 
bill.  Justice  would  demand  it;  and  in  my  humble  opinion  justice  de- 
mands nothing  less  on  the  present  occasion. 

But,  sir,  there  is  one  rule  of  a  more  positive  nature,  which  I  think 
applicable  to  the  case;  and  that  is,  that  a  witness  detected  in  one 
misrepresentation  is  to  be  credited  in  nothing.  This  rule  is  obvi- 
ously founded  in  the  plainest  reason,  and  it  would  be  totally  unsafe 
to  disregard  it.  Now  if  there  be  any  one  part  of  Ware^s  testimony, 
more  essential  than  all  the  rest,  as  to  its  effect  in  giving  a  bad  ap- 
pearance to  the  Respondent's  conduct,  it  is  that  in  which  he  testifies 
that  the  Respondent  volunteered,  in  the  case,  and  offered  his  advice 
before  it  was  asked.  This  is  a  most  material  part  of  the  whole  sto- 
ry; it  is  indispensable  to  the  keeping  of  the  picture  which  the  learned 


165 

Managers  have  drawn. — And  yet,  sir,  in  this  particular,  Ware  is  dis- 
tinctly and  positively  contradicted  by  Grout.  Now,  sir,  if  we  were 
in  a  court  of  law,  a  jury  would  be  instructed,  that  if  they  believed 
Ware  had  wilfully  deviated  from  the  truth,  in  this  respect,  nothing 
which  rested  solely  on  his  credit  would  be  received  as  proved.  We 
ask  for  the  Respondent,  in  this,  as  in  other  cases,  only  the  common 
protection  of  the  law.  We  require  only  that  those  rules,  which  have 
governed  other  trials,  may  govern  his;  and  according  to  these  rules, 
1  submit  to  the  Court  that  it  cannot  and  ought  not  to  convict  the  Re- 
spondent, even  if  the  facts  sworn  to  would,  if  proved,  warrant  a 
conviction,  upon  the  sole  testimony  of  this  witness.  Even  if  we 
were  sure  that  there  were  no  other  direct  departure  from  the  truth, 
yet  in  the  whole  of  his  narrative,  and  the  whole  of  his  manner,  we 
see  I  think  indications  of  great  animosity  and  prejudice.  If  the  whole 
of  this  transaction  were  to  be  recited  by  a  friendly,  or  a  candid  wit- 
ness, I  do  not  believe  it  would  strike  any  body  as  extraordinary.  Any 
mode  of  telling  this  story  which  shall  confine  the  narrative  to  the  essen- 
tial facts,  will  leave  it,  in  my  humble  opinion,  if  not  a  strictly  proper, 
yet  by  no  means  an  illegal  or  impeachable  transaction.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  a  great  part  of  his  story  is  such,  as  cannot  be  con- 
tradicted, though  it  be  false,  in  as  much  as  it  relates  to  alleged  con- 
versations between  him  and  the  Respondent  when  nobody  else  was 
present.  Wherever  the  means  naturally  exist  of  contradicting  or 
qualifying  his  testimony,  there  it  is  accomplished.  Whatever  circum- 
stance can  be  found  bearing  on  it,  shows  that  it  is  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree  incorrect.  For  example,  Ware  would  represent  that  it  was  an 
important  part  of  this  arrangement  to  keep  the  payment  of  the  fee 
from  the  knowledge  of  the  overseers.  This  was  the  reason  why  the 
charge  was  to  be  inserted  in  the  existing  account,  by  interlineation. 
Yet  the  evidence  is,  that  a  complete  copy  of  this  very  interlined  ac- 
count was  carried  home  by  Ware,  where  the  overseers  could  see  it, 
and  would  of  course  perceive  exactly  what  had  been  done.  This  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  any  purpose  of  secrecy  or  concealment. 

Making  just  and  reasonable  allowances,  for  the  considerations 
which  I  have  mentioned,  I  ask,  is  any  case  proved,  by  the  rules  of 
law,  against  the  Respondent?  And  further,  sir,  taking  the  facts  on- 
ly which  are  satisfactorily  established,  and  supposing  the  Respon- 
dent's conduct  to  have  been  wrong,  is  it  clearly  shown  to  have  been 
intentionally  wrong  ?  If  he  ought  not  to  have  given  the  advice,  is  it 
anything  more  than  an  error  of  judgment?  Can  this  Court  have 
so  little  charity  for  human  nature,  as  to  believe  that  a  man  of  respec- 
table standing  could  act  corruptly  for  so  paltry  an  object  ?  Even  al- 
though they  should  judge  his  conduct  improper,  do  they  believe  it  to 
have  originated  in  corrupt  motives?  For  my  own  part,  sir,  notwith- 
standing all  that  prejudices  and  prepossessions  may  have  done,  and 
all  that  the  most  extraordinary  manner  of  presenting  this  charge  may 
have  done,  I  will  not  believe,  till  the  annunciation  of  its  judgment 
shall  compel  me,  that  this  Court  will  ever  convict  the  Respondent 
upon  this  article. 

I  now  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  one  or  two 
considerations  of  a  general  nature,  and  which  appear  to  me  to  have 


166 

an  important  bearing  on  the  merits  of  this  whole  cause. — The  first 
is  this,  that  from  the  day  when  the  Respondent  was  appointed  Judge 
of  Probate,  down  to  the  period  at  which  these  articles  of  impeach- 
ment close — from  the  year  1805  to  1821 — there  is  not  a  single  case, 
with  the  exception  of  that  alleged  by  Ware,  in  which  it  is  even  pre- 
tended that  any  secrecy  was  designed  or  attempted  by  the  Respon- 
dent: there  is  not  a  single  case,  in  which  he  is  even  accused  of  hav- 
ing wished  to  keep  anything  out  of  sight,  or  to  conceal  any  fact  in 
his  administration,  any  charge  which  he  had  made,  or  any  fee  which 
he  had  taken.  The  evidence,  on  which  you  are  to  judge  him,  is  evi- 
dence furnished  by  himself;  and  instead  of  being  obliged  to  seek  for 
testimony  in  sources  beyond  the  Respondent's  control,  it  is  his  own 
avowed  actions,  his  public  administration,  and  the  records  of  his  of- 
fice, which  the  Managers  of  the  prosecution  alone  have  been  able 
to  produce.  And  yet  he  is  charged  with  having  acted  wilfully  and 
corruptly;  as  if  it  were  possible  that  a  magistrate,  in  a  high  and  re- 
sponsible station,  with  the  eyes  of  the  community  upon  him,  should, 
for  near  twenty  years,  pursue  a  course  of  corrupt  and  wilful  malad- 
ministration, of  which  every  act  and  every  instance  was  formally  and 
publicly  put  on  record  by  himself,  and  laid  open  in  the  face  of  the 
community.  Is  this  agreeable  to  the  laws  of  human  nature  ?  Why, 
sir,  if  the  Respondent  has  so  long  been  pursuing  a  course  of  con- 
scious, and  wilful,  and  corrupt  maladministration,  why  do  we  discov- 
er none  of  the  usual  and  natural  traces  of  such  a  course — some 
attempt  at  concealment,  some  effort  at  secrecy;  and  in  all  the  number- 
less cases,  in  which  he  had  opportunity  and  temptation,  why  is  not 
even  a  suspicion  thrown  out,  that  he  has  attempted  to  draw  a  veil  of 
privacy  over  his  alleged  extortions? — Is  it  in  reason  that  you  should 
be  obliged  to  go  to  his  own  records  for  the  proof  of  his  pretended 
crimes?  And  can  you,  with  even  the  color  of  probability,  appeal  to 
a  course  of  actions  unsuspiciously  performed  in  the  face  of  Heaven, 
to  support  an  accusation  of  offences  in  their  very  nature  private, 
concealed,  and  hidden  ? 

Another  consideration  of  a  general  nature  to  which  I  earnestly 
ask  the  attention  of  this  Hon.  Court,  is  this,  that  after  all  these  ac- 
cusations, which  have  been  brought  together  against  the  Respondent, 
in  all  these  articles  of  impeachment,  and  with  all  the  industry  and 
zeal,  with  which  the  matter  of  them  has  been  furnished  to  the  Hon. 
Managers,  he  is  not  accused  nor  was  suspected  of  the  crime,  most 
likely  to  bring  an  unjust  judge  to  the  bar  of  this  Court.  Show  me 
the  unjust  judgment  he  has  rendered,  the  illegal  order  he  has  given, 
the  corrupt  decree  he  has  uttered,  the  act  of  oppression  he  has  com- 
mitted. What,  sir,  a  magistrate,  charged  with  a  long  and  deliberate 
perseverance  in  wilful  and  corrupt  administration,  accused  of  extor- 
tion, thought  capable  of  accepting  the  miserable  bribe  of  a  few  cents 
or  a  few  dollars,  for  illegal  and  unconstitutional  acts — and  that,  too, 
in  an  office,  presenting  every  day  the  most  abundant  opportunities, 
and  if  the  Respondent  were  of  the  character  pretended,  the  most 
irresistible  temptation  to  acts  of  lucrative  injustice;  and  yet,  not  one 
instance  of  a  corrupt,  illegal,  or  oppressive  judgment!  I  do  ask  the 
permission  of  this  Hon.  Court  and  of  every  member  of  it,  to  put  this 


167 

to  his  own  conscience.  I  will  ask  him,  if  he  can  now  name  a  more 
able  and  upright  magistrate,  as  shown  in  all  his  proceedings  and 
judgments,  in  all  the  offices  of  probate  in  the  State?  One  whose 
records  are  more  regularly  and  properly  kept,  whose  administration 
is  more  prompt,  correct,  and  legal, — whose  competency  to  the  du- 
ties is  more  complete,  whose  discharge  of  them  is  more  punctual? 
I  put  this  earnestly,  sir,  to  the  conscience  of  every  member  of  this 
Hon.  Court.  I  appeal  more  especially  to  my  honorable  friend,  (Mr. 
Fay)  entrusted  with  a  share  of  the  management  of  this  prosecution, 
and  who  has  been  for  twenty  years  an  inhabitant  of  the  county  of 
Middlesex.  I  will  appeal  to  him,  sir,  and  I  will  ask  him,  whether 
if  he  knew,  that  this  night  his  wife  should  be  left  husbandless  and 
his  children  fatherless,  there  is  a  magistrate  in  the  State,  in  whose 
protection  he  had  rather  they  should  be  left^,  than  in  that  of  the  Re- 
spondent? Forgetting,  for  a  moment,  that  he  is  a  prosecutor,  and 
remembering  only  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  same  county,  a  member 
of  the  same  profession,  with  an  acquaintance  of  twenty  years  stand- 
ing, I  ask  him  if  he  will  say  that  he  believes  there  is  a  county  in  the 
State,  in  which  the  office  of  Judge  of  Probate  has  been  better  ad- 
ministered for  twenty  years,  than  it  has  been  in  the  county  of  Mid- 
dlesex by  this  Respondent.  And  yet,  sir,  you  are  asked  to  disgrace 
him.  You  are  asked  to  fix  on  him  the  stigma  of  a  corrupt  and  un- 
just judge,  and  condemn  him  to  wear  it  through  life. 

Mr.  President,  the  case  is  closed  !  The  fate  of  the  Respondent 
is  in  your  hands.  It  is  for  you  now  to  say,  whether,  from  the  law 
and  the  facts  as  they  have  appeared  before  you,  you  will  proceed  to 
disgrace  and  disfranchise  him.  If  your  duty  calls  on  you  to  con- 
vict him,  convict  him,  and  let  justice  be  done!  but  I  adjure  you  let 
it  be  a  clear  undoubted  case.  Let  it  be  so  for  his  sake,  for  you  are 
robbing  him  of  that,  for  which  with  all  your  high  powers,  you  can 
yield  him  no  compensation;  let  it  be  so  for  your  own  sakes,  for  the 
responsibility  of  this  day's  judgment  is  one,  which  you  must  carry 
with  you  through  your  life.  For  myself,  I  am  willing  here  to  relin- 
quish the  character  of  an  advocate,  and  to  express  opinions  by  which 
I  am  willing  to  be  bound,  as  a  citizen  of  the  community.  And  I 
say  upon  my  honor  and  conscience,  that  I  see  not  how,  with  the  law 
and  constitution  for  your  guides,  you  can  pronounce  the  Respondent 
guilty.  I  declare,  that  I  have  seen  no  case  of  wilful  and  corrupt  of- 
ficial misconduct,  set  forth  according  to  the  requisition  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  proved  according  to  the  common  rules  of  evidence.  I 
see  many  things  imprudent  and  ill  judged;  many  things  that  I  could 
wish  had  been  otherwise;  but  corruption  and  crime  I  do  not  see. 
Sir,  the  prejudices  of  the  day  will  soon  be  forgotten;  the  passions, 
if  any  there  be,  which  have  excited  or  favored  this  prosecution,  will 
subside;  but  the  consequence  of  the  judgment  you  are  about  to 
render  will  outlive  both  them  and  you.  The  Respondent  is  now 
brought,  a  single  unprotected  individual,  to  this  formidable  bar  of 
judgment,  to  stand  against  the  power  and  authority  of  the  State.  I 
know  you  can  crush  him,  as  he  stands  before  you,  and  clothed  as 
you  are  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  State.  You  have  the  power  "  to 
change  his  countenance,  and  to  send  him  away." — Nor  do  I  remind 


168 

you  that  your  judgment  is  to  be  rejudged  by  the  community;  and 
as  you  have  summoned  him  for  trial  to  this  high  tribunal,  you  are 
soon  to  descend  yourselves  from  these  seats  of  justice,  and  stand 
before  the  higher  tribunal  of  the  world.  I  would  not  fail  so  much 
in  respect  to  this  Hon.  Court,  as  to  hint  that  it  could  pronounce  a 
sentence,  which  the  community  will  reverse.  No  sir,  it  is  not  the 
world's  revision,  which  I  would  call  on  you  to  regard;  but  that  of 
your  own  consciences  when  years  have  gone  by,  and  you  shall  look 
back  on  the  sentence  you  are  about  to  render.  If  you  send  away 
the  Respondent,  condemned  and  sentenced,  from  your  bar,  you  are 
yet  to  meet  him  in  the  world,  on  which  you  cast  him  out. — You  will 
be  called  to  behold  him  a  disgrace  to  his  family,  a  sorrow  and 
a  shame  to  his  children,  a  living  fountain  of  grief  and  agony  to 
himself. 

If  you  shall  then  be  able  to  behold  him  only  as  an  unjust  judge, 
whom  vengeance  has  overtaken,  and  justice  has  blasted,  you  will 
be  able  to  look  upon  him,  not  without  pity,  but  yet  without  remorse. 
But,  if,  on  the  other  hand,  you  shall  see,  whenever  and  wherever 
you  meet  him,  a  victim  of  prejudice  or  of  passion,  a  sacrifice  to  a 
transient  excitement;  if  you  shall  see  in  him,  a  man,  for  whose  con- 
demnation any  provision  of  the  constitution  has  been  violated,  or  any 
principle  of  law  broken  down;  then  will  he  be  able — humble  and 
low  as  may  be  his  condition — then  will  he  be  able  to  turn  the  cur- 
rent of  compassion  backward,  and  to  look  with  pity  on  those  who 
have  been  his  judges.  If  you  are  about  to  visit  this  Respondent 
with  a  judgment  which  shall  blast  his  house;  if  the  bosoms  of  the 
innocent  and  the  amiable  are  to  be  made  to  bleed,  under  your  in- 
fliction, I  beseech  you  to  be  able  to  state  clear  and  strong  grounds 
for  your  proceeding.  Prejudice  and  excitement  are  transitory,  and 
will  pass  away.  Political  expediency,  in  matters  of  judicature,  is 
false  and  hollow  principle,  and  will  never  satisfy  the  conscience  of  him 
who  is  fearful  that  he  may  have  given  a  hasty  judgment.  I  earnestly 
entreat  you,  for  your  own  sakes,  to  possess  yourselves  of  solid  rea- 
sons, founded  in  truth  and  justice,  for  the  judgment  you  pronounce, 
which  you  can  carry  with  you,  till  you  go  down  into  your  graves; 
reasons,  which  it  will  require  no  argument  to  revive,  no  sophistry, 
no  excitement,  no  regard  to  popular  favor,  to  render  satisfactory  to 
your  consciences;  reasons  which  you  can  appeal  to,  in  every  crisis 
of  your  lives,  and  which  shall  be  able  to  assure  you,  in  your  own 
great  extremity,  that  you  have  not  judged  a  fellow  creature  without 
mercy. 

Sir,  I  have  done  with  the  case  of  this  individual,  and  now  leave 
him  in  your  hands.  But  I  would  yet  once  more  appeal  to  you  as 
public  men;  as  statesmen;  as  men  of  enlightened  minds,  capable 
of  a  large  view  of  things,  and  of  foreseeing  the  remote  consequen- 
ces of  important  transactions;  and,  as  such,  I  would  most  earnestly 
implore  you  to  consider  fully  of  the  judgment  you  may  pronounce. 
You  are  about  to  give  a  construction  to  constitutional  provisions, 
which  may  adhere  to  that  instrument  for  ages,  either  for  good  or 
evil.  I  may  perhaps  overrate  the  importance  of  this  occasion  to 
the  public  welfare ;  but  I  confess  it  does  appear  to  me  that  if  this 


169 

body  give  its  sanction  to  some  of  the  principles  which  have  been 
advanced  on  this  occasion,  then  there  is  a  power  in  the  State  above 
the  constitution  and  the  law;  a  power  essentially  arbitrary  and  con- 
centrated, the  exercise  of  which  may  be  most  dangerous.  If  im- 
peachment be  not  under  the  rule  of  the  constitution  and  the  laws, 
then  may  we  tremble,  not  only  for  those  who  may  be  impeached, 
but  for  all  others.  If  the  full  benefit  of  every  constitutional  provis- 
ion be  not  extended  to  the  Respondent,  his  case  becomes  the  case 
of  all  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  constitution  is  their 
constitution.  They  have  made  it  for  their  own  protection,  and  for 
his  among  the  rest.  They  are  not  eager  for  his  conviction.  They 
are  not  thirsting  for  his  blood.  If  he  be  condemned,  without  hav- 
ing his  offences  set  forth,  in  the  manner  which  they,  by  their  con- 
stitution have  prescribed;  and  proved,  in  the  manner  which  they, 
by  their  laws  have  ordained,  then  not  only  is  he  condemned  unjustly, 
but  the  rights  of  the  whole  people  disregarded.  For  the  sake  of  the 
people  themselves,  therefore,  I  would  resist  all  attempts  to  convict 
by  straining  the  laws,  or  getting  over  their  prohibitions. — I  hold  up 
before  him  the  broad  shield  of  the  constitution;  if  through  that  he 
be  pierced  and  fall,  he  will  be  but  one  sufferer,  in  a  common  catas- 
trophe. 


ARGUMENT 


IN  THE  CASE  OF  GIBBONS  vs.  OGDEN,  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF 
THE  UNITED  STATES,  FEBRUARY  TERM,  1824. 

This  was  an  appeal  from  the  Court  for  the  Trial  of  Impeachments  and  Correction  of 
Errors  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Aaron  Ogden  filed  his  bill  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of 
that  State,  against  Thomas  Gibbons,  setting  forth  the  several  acts  of  the  Legislature  thereof, 
enacted  for  the  purpose  of  securing  to  Robert  R.  Livingston  and  Robert  Fulton,  the  exclu- 
sive navigation  of  all  the  waters  within  the  jurisdiction  of  that  State,  with  boats  moved  by 
fire  or  steam,  for  a  term  of  years  which  has  not  yet  expired  ;  and  authorising  the  Chancellor 
to  award  an  injunction,  restraining  any  person  whatever  from  navigating  those  waters  with 
boats  of  that  description.  The  bill  stated  an  assignment  from  Livingston  and  Fulton  to  one 
John  R.  Livingston,  and  from  him  to  the  complainant,  Ogden,  of  the  right  to  navigate  the 
waters  between  Elizabethtown,  and  other  places  in  New  Jersey,  and  the  city  of  New  York; 
and  that  Gibbons,  the  defendant  below,  was  in  possession  of  two  steam  boats,  called  the 
Stoudinger  and  the  Bellona,  which  were  actually  employed  in  running  between  New  York 
and  Elizabethtown,  in  violation  of  the  exclusive  privilege  conferred  on  the  complainant, 
and  praying  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  said  Gibbons  from  using  the  said  boats,  or  any 
other  propelled  by  fire  or  steam,  in  navigating  the  waters  within  the  territory  of  New  York. 
The  injunction  having  been  awarded,  the  answer  of  Gibbons  was  filed,  in  which  he  stated, 
that  the  boats  employed  by  him  were  duly  enrolled  and  licensed,  to  be  employed  in  carrying 
on  the  coasting  trade,  under  the  act  of  Congress,  passed  the  18th  of  February,  1793,  c.  8. 
entitled,  "  An  act  for  enrolling  and  licensing  ships  and  vessels  to  be  employed  in  the  coast- 
ing trade  and  fisheries,  and  for  regulating  the  same."  And  the  defendant  insisted  on  his 
right,  in  virtue  of  such  licenses,  to  navigate  the  waters  between  Elizabethtown  and  the  city  of 
New  York,  the  said  acts  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. At  the  hearing,  the  Chancellor  perpetuated  the  injunction,  being  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  said  acts  were  not  repugnant  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
were  valid.  This  decree  was  affirmed  in  the  Court  for  the  Trial  of  Impeachments  and 
Correction  of  Errors,  which  is  the  highest  Court  of  law  and  equity  in  the  State,  before  which 
the  cause  could  be  carried,  and  it  was  thereupon  brought  to  this  Court  by  appeal. 

Mr.  Webster,  for  the  appellant,  admitted,  that  there  was  a  very- 
respectable  weight  of  authority  in  favor  of  the  decision,  which  was 
sought  to  be  reversed.  The  laws  in  question,  he  knew,  had  been 
deliberately  re-enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  New  York;  and  they 
had  also  received  the  sanction,  at  different  times,  of  all  her  judicial 
tribunals,  than  which  there  were  few,  if  any,  in  the  country,  more 
justly  entitled  to  respect  and  deference.  The  disposition  of  the 
Court  would  be,  undoubtedly,  to  support,  if  it  could,  laws  so  passed 
and  so  sanctioned.  He  admitted,  therefore,  that  it  was  justly  expect- 
ed of  him  that  he  should  make  out  a  clear  case;  and  unless  he  did 
so,  he  did  not  hope  for  a  reversal.     It  should  be  remembered,  how- 

1 


171 

ever,  that  the  whole  of  this  branch  of  power,  as  exercised  by  this 
Court,  was  a  power  of  revision.  The  question  must  be  decided  by 
the  State  Courts,  and  decided  in  a  particular  manner,  before  it  could 
be  brought  here  at  all.  Such  decisions  alone  gave  the  Court  juris- 
diction; and  therefore,  while  they  are  to  be  respected  as  the  judg- 
ments of  learned  judges,  they  are  yet  in  the  condition  of  all  deci- 
sions from  which  the  law  allows  an  appeal. 

It  would  not  be  a  waste  of  time  to  advert  to  the  existing  state  of 
the  facts  connected  with  the  subject  of  this  litigation.  The  use  of 
steam  boats,  on  the  coasts,  and  in  the  bays  and  rivers  of  the  country, 
had  become  very  general.  The  intercourse  of  its  different  parts 
essentially  depended  upon  this  mode  of  conveyance  and  transporta- 
tion. Rivers  and  bays,  in  many  cases,  form  the  divisions  between 
States;  and  thence  it  was  obvious,  that  if  the  States  should  make 
regulations  for  the  navigation  of  these  waters,  and  such  regulations 
should  be  repugnant  and  hostile,  embarrassment  would  necessarily 
happen  to  the  general  intercourse  of  the  community.  Such  events 
had  actually  occurred,  and  had  created  the  existing  state  of  things. 

By  the  law  of  New  York,  no  one  can  navigate  the  bay  of  New 
York,  the  North  River,  the  Sound,  the  lakes,  or  any  of  the  waters 
of  that  State,  by  steam  vessels,  without  a  license  from  the  grantees  of 
New  York,  under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  the  vessel. 

By  the  law  of  the  neighbouring  State  of  Connecticut,  no  one  can 
enter  her  waters  with  a  steam  vessel  having  such  license. 

By  the  law  of  New  Jersey,  if  any  citizen  of  that  State  shall  be 
restrained,  under  the  New  York  law,  from  using  steam  boats  between 
the  ancient  shores  of  New  Jersey  and  New  York,  he  shall  be  en- 
titled to  an  action  for  damages,  in  New  Jersey,  with  treble  costs 
against  the  party  who  thus  restrains  or  impedes  him  under  the  law  of 
Ncio  York  I  This  act  of  New  Jersey  is  called  an  act  of  retortion 
against  the  illegal  and  oppressive  legislation  of  New  York;  and 
seems  to  be  defended  on  those  grounds  of  public  law  which  justify 
reprisals  between  independent  States. 

It  would  hardly  be  contended,  that  all  these  acts  were  consistent 
with  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the  United  States.  If  there  were 
no  power  in  the  general  government,  to  control  this  extreme  bellig- 
erent legislation  of  the  States,  the  powers  of  the  government  were 
essentially  deficient,  in  a  most  important  and  interesting  particular. 
The  present  controversy  respected  the  earliest  of  these  State  laws, 
those  of  New  York.  On  those,  this  Court  was  now  to  pronounce; 
and  if  they  should  be  declared  to  be  valid  and  operative,  he  hoped 
somebody  would  point  out  where  the  State  right  stopped,  and  on 
what  grounds  the  acts  of  other  States  were  to  be  held  inoperative 
and  void. 

It  would  be  necessary  to  advert  more  particularly  to  the  laws  of 
New  York,  as  they  were  stated  in  the  record.  The  first  was  passed 
March  19th,  1787.  By  this  act,  a  sole  and  exclusive  right  was 
granted  to  John  Filch,  of  making  and  using  every  kind  of  boat  or 
vessel  impelled  by  steam,  in  all  creeks,  rivers,  bays,  and  waters, 
within  the  territory  and  jurisdiction  of  New  York,  for  fourteen  years. 

On  the  27th  of  March,  1798,  an  act  was  passed,  on  the  sugges 
tion  that  Fitch  was  dead,  or  had  withdrawn  from  the  State,  without 


172 

having  made  any  attempt  to  use  his  privilege,  repealing  the  grant 
to  him,  and  conferring  similar  privileges  on  Robert  R.  Livingston,  for 
the  term  of  twenty  years,  on  a  suggestion,  made  by  him,  that  he  was 
possessor  of  a  mode  of  applying  the  steam  engine  to  propel  a  boat,  on  new 
and  advantageous  principles.  On  the  5th  of  April,  1803,  another  act 
was  passed,  by  which  it  was  declared,  that  the  rights  and  privileges 
granted  to  R.  R.  Livingston,  by  the  last  act,  should  be  extended  to 
him  and  Robert  Fulton,  for  twenty  years,  from  the  passing  of  this  act. 
Then  there  is  the  act  of  April  11,  1808,  purporting  to  extend  the 
monopoly,  in  point  of  time,  five  years  for  every  additional  boat,  the 
whole  duration,  however,  not  to  exceed  thirty  years;  and  forbidding 
any  and  all  persons  to  navigate  the  waters  of  the  State,  with  any 
steam  boat  or  vessel,  without  the  license  of  Livingston  and  Fulton, 
under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  the  boat  or  vessel.  And,  lastly,  comes 
the  act  of  April  9,  181 1,  for  enforcing  the  provisions  of  the  last  men- 
tioned act,  and  declaring,  that  the  forfeiture  of  the  boat  or  vessel, 
found  navigating  against  the  provisions  of  the  previous  acts,  shall 
be  deemed  to  accrue  on  the  day  on  which  such  boat  or  vessel  should 
navigate  the  waters  of  the  State ;  and  that  Livingston  and  Fulton 
might  immediately  have  an  action  for  such  boat  or  vessel,  in  like 
manner  as  if  they  themselves  had  been  dispossessed-thereof  by  force; 
and  that  on  bringing  any  such  suit,  the  defendant  therein  should  be 
prohibited,  by  injunction,  from  removing  the  boat  or  vessel  out  of 
the  State,  or  using  it  within  the  State.  There  were  one  or  two 
other  acts  mentioned  in  the  pleadings,  which  principally  respected  the 
time  allowed  for  complying  with  the  condition  of  the  grant,  and 
were  not  material  to  the  discussion  of  the  case. 

By  these  acts,  then,  an  exclusive  right  is  given  to  Livingston  and 
Fulton,  to  use  steam  navigation  on  all  the  waters  of  New  York,  for 
thirty  years  from  1808. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  recite  the  several  conveyances  and  agree- 
ments, stated  in  the  record,  by  which  Ogden,  the  plaintiff  below,  de- 
rives title  under  Livingston  and  Fidton,  to  the  exclusive  use  of  part 
of  these  waters. 

The  appellant  being  owner  of  a  steam  boat,  and  being  found  navi- 
gating the  waters  between  New  Jersey  and  the  city  of  New  York, 
over  which  waters  Ogden,  the  plaintiff  below,  claimed  an  exclusive 
right,  under  Livingston  and  Fulton,  this  bill  was  filed  against  him  by 
Ogden,  in  October,  1818,  and  an  injunction  granted,  restraining  him 
from  such  use  of  his  boat.  This  injunction  was  made  perpetual,  on 
the  final  hearing  of  the  cause,  in  the  Court  of  Chancery;  and  the 
decree  of  the  Chancellor  has  been  duly  affirmed  in  the  Court  of 
Errors.  The  right,  therefore,  which  the  plaintiff  below  asserts  to 
have  and  maintain  his  injunction,  depends  obviously  on  the  general 
validity  of  the  New  York  laws,  and,  especially,  on  their  force  and 
operation  as  against  the  right  set  up  by  the  defendant.  This  right 
he  states,  in  his  answer,  to  be,  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  New  Jersey, 
and  owner  of  the  steam  boat  in  question;  that  the  boat  was  a  vessel 
of  more  than  twenty  tons  burden,  duly  enrolled  and  licensed  for  car- 
rying on  the  coasting  trade,  and  intended  to  be  employed  by  him,  in 
chat  trade,  between  Elizabethtown,  in  New  Jersey,  and  the  city  of 
New  York;  and  was  actually  employed  in  navigating  between  those 


173 

places,  at  the  time  of,  and  until  notice  of  the  injunction  from  the 
Court  of  Chancery  was  served  on  him. 

On  these  pleadings  the  substantial  question  is  raised:  Are  these 
laws  such  as  the  Legislature  of  New  York  had  aright  to  pass?  If 
so,  do  they,  secondly,  in  their  operation,  interfere  with  any  right  en- 
joyed under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  are 
they,  therefore,  void,  as  far  as  such  interference  extends? 

It  may  be  well  to  state  again  their  general  purport  and  effect,  and 
the  purport  and  effect  of  the  other  State  laws,  which  have  been  en- 
acted by  way  of  retaliation. 

A  steam  vessel,  of  any  description,  going  to  New  York,  is  for- 
feited to  the  representatives  of  Livingston  and  Fulton,  unless  she  have 
their  license. 

Going  from  New  York,  or  elsewhere,  to  Connecticut,  she  is  pro- 
hibited from  entering  the  waters  of  that  State,  if  she  have  such  license. 

If  the  representatives  of  Livingston  and  Fulton,  in  New  York,  car- 
ry into  effect,  by  judicial  process,  the  provision  of  the  New  York 
laws,  against  any  citizen  of  New  Jersey,  they  expose  themselves  to 
a  statute  action,  in  Neiv  Jersey,  for  all  damages,  and  treble  costs. 

The  New  York  laws  extend  to  all  steam  vessels;  to  steam  frigates, 
steam  ferry-boats,  and  all  intermediate  classes 

They  extend  to  public  as  well  as  private  ships;  and  to  vessels  em- 
ployed in  foreign  commerce,  as  well  as  to  those  employed  in  the 
coasting  trade. 

The  remedy  is  as  summary  as  the  grant  itself  is  ample ;  for  imme- 
diate confiscation,  without  seizure,  trial,  or  judgment,  is  the  penalty 
of  infringement. 

In  regard  to  these  acts,  he  should  contend,  in  the  first  place,  that 
they  exceeded  the  power  of  the  Legislature;  and,  secondly,  that  if 
they  could  be  considered  valid,  for  any  purpose,  they  were  void, 
still,  as  against  any  right  enjoyed  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  with  which  they  came  in  collision;  and  that,  in  this  case, 
they  were  found  interfering  with  such  rights. 

He  should  contend,  that  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  com- 
merce, was  complete  and  entire,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  necessarily 
exclusive;  that  the  acts  in  question  were  regulations  of  commerce, 
in  a  most  important  particular;  and  affecting  it  in  those  respects,  in 
which  it  was  under  the  exclusive  authority  of  Congress.  He  stated 
this  first  proposition  guardedly.  He  did  not  mean  to  say  that  all 
regulations  which  might,  in  their  operation,  affect  commerce,  were 
exclusively  in  the  power  of  Congress;  but  that  such  power  as  had 
been  exercised  in  this  case,  did  not  remain  with  the  States.  Noth- 
ing was  more  complex  than  commerce;  and  in  such  an  age  as  this,  no 
words  embraced  a  wider  field  than  commercial  regulation.  Almost 
all  the  business  and  intercourse  of  life  may  be  connected,  inciden- 
tally, more  or  less,  with  commercial  regulations.  But  it  was  only 
necessary  to  apply  to  this  part  of  the  constitution  the  well  settled 
rules  of  construction.  Some  powers  are  holden  to  be  exclusive  in 
Congress,  from  the  use  of  exclusive  words  in  the  grant;  others,  from 
the  prohibitions  on  the  States  to  exercise  similar  powers;  and  others, 
again,  from  the  nature  of  the  powers  themselves.  It  has  been  by 
this  mode  of  reasoning  that  the  Court  has  adjudicated  on  many  im- 

p* 


174 

portant  questions;  and  the  same  mode  is  proper  here.  And,  as  some 
powers  have  been  holden  exclusive,  and  others  not  so,  under  the 
same  form  of  expression,  from  the  nature  of  the  different  powers 
respectively;  so,  where  the  power,  on  any  one  subject,  is  given  in 
general  words,  like  the  power  to  regulate  commerce,  the  true  method 
of  construction  would  be,  to  consider  of  what  parts  the  grant  is 
composed,  and  which  of  those,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  ought 
to  be  considered  exclusive.  The  right  set  up  in  this  case,  under 
the  laws  of  New  York,  is  a  monopoly.  Now,  he  thought  it  very 
reasonable  to  say,  that  the  constitution  never  intended  to  leave  with 
the  States  the  power  of  granting  monopolies,  either  of  trade  or  of 
navigation;  and,  therefore,  that  as  to  this,  the  commercial  power  was 
exclusive  in  Congress. 

It  was  in  vain  to  look  for  a  precise  and  exact  definition  of  the 
powers  of  Congress,  on  several  subjects.  The  constitution  did  not 
undertake  the  task  of  making  such  exact  definitions.  In  conferring 
powers,  it  proceeded  in  the  way  of  enumeration,  stating  the  powers 
conferred,  one  after  another,  in  few  words;  and,  where  the  power 
was  general,  or  complex  in  its  nature,  the  extent  of  the  grant  must 
necessarily  be  judged  of,  and  limited,  by  its  object,  and  by  the  na- 
ture of  the  power. 

Few  things  were  better  known,  than  the  immediate  causes  which 
led  to  the  adoption  of  the  present  constitution;  and  he  thought  noth- 
ing clearer,  than  that  the  prevailing  motive  was  to  regulate  commerce; 
to  rescue  it  from  the  embarrassing  and  destructive  consequences, 
resulting  from  the  legislation  of  so  many  different  States,  and  to 
place  it  under  the  protection  of  a  uniform  law.  The  great  objects 
were  commerce  and  revenue;  and  they  were  objects  indissolubly  con- 
nected. By  the  confederation,  divers  restrictions  had  been  imposed 
on  the  States;  but  these  had  not  been  found  sufficient.  No  State, 
it  was  true,  could  send  or  receive  an  embassy;  nor  make  any  treaty; 
nor  enter  into  any  compact  with  another  State,  or  with  a  foreign 
power;  nor  lay  duties,  interfering  with  treaties  which  had  been  en- 
tered into  by  Congress.  But  all  these  were  found  to  be  far  short  of 
what  the  actual  condition  of  the  country  required.  The  States 
could  still,  each  for  itself,  regulate  commerce,  and  the  consequence 
was,  a  perpetual  jarring  and  hostility  of  commercial  regulation. 

In  the  history  of  the  times,  it  was  accordingly  found,  that  the 
great  topic,  urged  on  all  occasions,  as  showing  the  necessity  of  a 
new  and  different  government,  was  the  state  of  trade  and  commerce. 
To  benefit  and  improve  these,  was  a  great  object  in  itself;  and  it 
became  greater  when  it  was  regarded  as  the  only  means  of  enabling 
the  country  to  pay  the  public  debt,  and  to  do  justice  to  those  who 
had  most  effectually  labored  for  its  independence.  The  leading 
state  papers  of  the  time  are  full  of  this  topic.  The  New  Jersey 
resolutions*  complain,  that  the  regulation  of  trade  was  in  the  power 
of  the  several  States,  within  their  separate  jurisdiction,  in  such  a 
degree  as  to  involve  many  difficulties  and  embarrassments;  and  they 
express  an  earnest  opinion,  that  the  sole  and  exclusive  power  of  regu- 
lating trade  with  foreign  States,  ought  to  be  in  Congress.  Mr. 
Witherspoon's  motion  in  Congress,  in  1781,  is  of  the  same  general 

*  1  Laws  U.  S.  p    28. 


175 

character;  and  the  report  of  a  committee  of  that  body,  in  1785,  is 
still  more  emphatic.  It  declares  that  Congress  ought  to  possess  the 
sole  and  exclusive  power  of  regulating  trade,  as  well  with  foreign 
nations,  as  between  the  States.*  The  resolutions  of  Yirginia,  in 
January,  1786,  which  were  the  immediate  cause  of  the  convention, 
put  forth  this  same  great  object.  Indeed,  it  is  the  only  object  stated 
in  those  resolutions.  There  is  not  another  idea  in  the  whole  docu- 
ment. The  entire  purpose  for  which  the  delegates  assembled  at 
Annapolis,  was  to  devise  means  for  the  uniform  regulation  of  trade. 
They  found  no  means,  but  in  a  general  government;  and  they  recom- 
mended a  convention  to  accomplish  that  purpose.  Over  whatever 
other  interests  of  the  country  this  government  may  diffuse  its  bene- 
fits, and  its  blessings,  it  will  always  be  true,  as  matter  of  historical 
fact,  that  it  had  its  immediate  origin  in  the  necessities  of  commerce; 
and,  for  its  immediate  object,  the  relief  of  those  necessities,  by  re- 
moving their  causes,  and  by  establishing  a  uniform  and  steady  system. 
It  would  be  easy  to  show,  by  reference  to  the  discussions  in  the 
several  State  conventions,  the  prevalence  of  the  same  general  top- 
ics; and  if  any  one  would  look  to  the  proceedings  of  several  of  the 
States,  especially  to  those  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  he 
would  see,  very  plainly,  by  the  recorded  lists  of  votes,  that  wherever 
this  commercial  necessity  was  most  strongly  felt,  there  the  proposed 
new  constitution  had  most  friends.  In  the  New  York  convention, 
the  argument  arising  from  this  consideration  was  strongly  pressed, 
by  the  distinguished  person  whose  name  is  connected  with  the  present 
question. 

We  do  not  find,  in  the  history  of  the  formation  and  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  that  any  man  speaks  of  a  general  concurrent  power, 
in  the  regulation  of  foreign  and  domestic  trade,  as  still  residing  in 
the  States.  The  very  object  intended,  more  than  any  other,  was  to 
take  away  such  power.  If  it  had  not  so  provided,  the  constitution 
would  not  have  been  worth  accepting. 

He  contended,  therefore,  that  the  people  intended,  in  establishing 
the  constitution,  to  transfer,  from  the  several  States  to  a  general 
government,  those  high  and  important  powers  over  commerce,  which, 
in  their  exercise,  were  to  maintain  an  uniform  and  general  system. 
From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  these  powers  must  be  exclusive; 
that  is,  the  higher  branches  of  commercial  regulation  must  be  exclu- 
sively committed  to  a  single  hand.  What  is  it  that  is  to  be  regula- 
ted? Not  the  commerce  of  the  several  States,  respectively,  but  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States.  Henceforth,  the  commerce  of  the 
States  was  to  be  an  unit;  and  the  system  by  which  it  was  to  exist 
and  be  governed,  must  necessarily  be  complete,  entire,  and  uniform. 
Its  character  was  to  be  described  in  the  flag  which  waved  over  it, 
E  pluribus  unum.  Now,  how  could  individual  States  assert  a  right 
of  concurrent  legislation,  in  a  case  of  this  sort,  without  manifest 
encroachment  and  confusion?  It  should  be  repeated,  that  the  words 
used  in  the  constitution,  "  to  regulate  commerce,"  are  so  very  gen- 
eral and  extensive,  that  they  might  be  construed  to  cover  a  vast 
field  of  legislation,  part  of  which  has  always  been  occupied  by  State 
laws;  and,  therefore,  the  words  must  have  a  reasonable  construction, 

*  1  Laws  U.  S.  p.  50. 


176 

and  the  power  should  be  considered  as  exclusively  vested  in  Con- 
gress, so  far,  and  so  far  only,  as  the  nature  of  the  power  requires. 
And  he  insisted,  that  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  of  the  power,  did 
imperiously  require,  that  such  important  authority  as  that  of  grant- 
ing monopolies  of  trade  and  navigation,  should  not  be  considered  as 
still  retained  by  the  States. 

It  is  apparent,  from  the  prohibitions  on  the  power  of  the  States, 
that  the  general  concurrent  power  was  not  supposed  to  be  left  with 
them.  And  the  exception,  out  of  these  prohibitions,  of  the  inspec- 
tion laws,  proves  this  still  more  clearly.  Which  most  concerns  the 
commerce  of  this  country,  that  New  York  and  Virginia  should  have 
an  uncontrolled  power  to  establish  their  inspection  for  flour  and  to- 
bacco, or  that  they  should  have  an  uncontrolled  power  of  granting 
either  a  monopoly  of  trade  in  their  own  ports,  or  a  monopoly  of  navi- 
gation over  all  the  waters  leading  to  those  ports  ?  Yet,  the  argu- 
ment on  the  other  side  must  be,  that,  although  the  constitution  has 
sedulously  guarded  and  limited  the  first  of  these  powers,  it  has  left 
the  last  wholly  unlimited  and  uncontrolled. 

But,  although  much  had  been  said,  in  the  discussion  on  former 
occasions,  about  this  supposed  concurrent  power  in  the  States,  he 
found  great  difficulty  in  understanding  what  was  meant  by  it.  It 
was  generally  qualified,  by  saying,  that  it  was  a  power,  by  which 
the  States  could  pass  laws  on  the  subjects  of  commercial  regulation, 
which  would  be  valid,  until  Congress  should  pass  other  laws  con- 
trolling them,  or  inconsistent  with  them,  and  that  then  the  State  laws 
must  yield.  What  sort  of  concurrent  powers  were  these,  which  could 
not  exist  together?  Indeed,  the  very  reading  of  the  clause  in  the 
constitution  must  put  to  flight  this  notion  of  a  general  concurrent 
power.  The  constitution  was  formed  for  all  the  States;  and  Con- 
gress was  to  have  power  to  regulate  commerce.  Now,  what  is  the 
import  of  this,  but  that  Congress  is  to  give  the  rule — to  establish 
the  system — to  exercise  the  control  over  the  subject?  And,  can 
more  than  one  power,  in  cases  of  this  sort,  give  the  rule,  establish 
the  system,  or  exercise  the  control?  As  it  is  not  contended  that 
the  power  of  Congress  is  to  be  exercised  by  a  supervision  of  State 
legislation;  and,  as  it  is  clear,  that  Congress  is  to  give  the  general 
rule,  he  contended,  that  this  power  of  giving  the  general  rule  was 
transferred,  by  the  constitution,  from  the  States  to  Congress,  to  be 
exercised  as  that  body  might  see  fit.  And,  consequently,  that  all 
those  high  exercises  of  power,  which  might  be  considered  as  giving 
the  rule,  or  establishing  the  system,  in  regard  to  great  commercial 
interests,  were  necessarily  left  with  Congress  alone.  Of  this  char- 
acter he  considered  monopolies  of  trade  or  navigation;  embargoes; 
the  system  of  navigation  laws;  the  countervailing  laws,  as  against 
foreign  states;  and  other  important  enactments  respecting  our  con- 
nexion with  such  states.  It  appeared  to  him  a  most  reasonable  con- 
struction, to  say,  that  in  these  respects,  the  power  of  Congress  is 
exclusive,  from  the  nature  of  the  power.  If  it  be  not  so,  where  is 
the  limit,  or  who  shall  fix  a  boundary  for  the  exercise  of  the  power 
of  the  States?  Can  a  State  grant  a  monopoly  of  trade?  Can  New 
York  shut  her  ports  to  all  but  her  own  citizens?  Can  she  refuse  ad- 
mission to  ships  of  particular  nations?     The  argument  on  the  other 


177 

side  is,  and  must  be,  that  she  might  do  all  these  things,  until  Con- 
gress should  revoke  her  enactments.  And  this  is  called  concurrent 
legislation.  What  confusion  such  notions  lead  to,  is  obvious  enough. 
A  power  in  the  States  to  do  anything,  and  everything,  in  regard  to 
commerce,  till  Congress  shall  undo  it,  would  suppose  a  state  of 
things,  at  least  as  bad  as  that  which  existed  before  the  present  con- 
stitution. It  is  the  true  wisdom  of  these  governments  to  keep  their 
action  as  distinct  as  possible.  The  general  government  should  not 
seek  to  operate  where  the  States  can  operate  with  more  advantage 
to  the  community;  nor  should  the  States  encroach  on  ground,  which 
the  public  good,  as  well  as  the  constitution,  refers  to  the  exclusive 
control  of  Congress. 

If  the  present  state  of  things — these  laws  of  New  York,  the  laws 
of  Connecticut,  and  the  laws  of  New  Jersey,  had  been  all  present- 
ed, in  the  convention  of  New  York,  to  the  eminent  person  whose 
name  is  on  this  record,  and  who  acted,  on  that  occasion,  so  impor- 
tant a  part;  if  he  had  been  told,  that,  after  all  he  had  said  in  favor 
of  the  new  government,  and  of  its  salutary  effects  on  commercial 
regulations,  the  time  should  yet  come,  when  the  North  River  would 
be  shut  up  by  a  monopoly  from  New  York;  the  Sound  interdicted 
by  a  penal  law  of  Connecticut;  reprisals  authorised  by  New  Jersey, 
against  citizens  of  New  York;  and  when  one  could  not  cross  a  ferry, 
without  transhipment;  does  any  one  suppose  he  would  have  admitted 
all  this,  as  compatible  with  the  government  which  he  was  recom- 
mending? 

This  doctrine  of  a  general  concurrent  power  in  the  States,  is  in 
sidious  and  dangerous.  If  it  be  admitted,  no  one  can  say  where  it 
will  stop.  The  States  may  legislate,  it  is  said,  wherever  Congress 
has  not  made  a  plenary  exercise  of  its  power.  But  who  is  to  judge 
whether  Congress  has  made  this  plenary  exercise  of  power?  Con- 
gress has  acted  on  this  power;  it  has  done  all  that  it  deemed  wise; 
and  are  the  States  now  to  do  whatever  Congress  has  left  undone  ? 
Congress  makes  such  rules  as,  in  its  judgment,  the  case  requires; 
and  those  rules,  whatever  they  are,  constitute  the  system. 

All  useful  regulation  does  not  consist  in  restraint;  and  that  which 
Congress  sees  tit  to  leave  free,  is  a  part  of  its  regulation,  as  much 
as  the  rest. 

He  thought  the  practice  under  the  constitution  sufficiently  evin- 
ced, that  this  portion  of  the  commercial  power  was  exclusive  in  Con- 
gress. When,  before  this  instance,  have  the  States  granted  monop- 
olies? When,  until  now,  have  they  interfered  with  the  navigation 
of  the  country?  The  pilot  laws,  the  health  laws,  or  quarantine 
laws,  and  various  regulations  of  that  class,  which  have  been  recog- 
nised by  Congress,  are  no  arguments  to  prove,  even  if  they  are  to 
be  called  commercial  regulations,  (which  they  are  not,)  that  other 
regulations,  more  directly  and  strictly  commercial,  are  not  solely 
within  the  power  of  Congress.  There  was  a  singular  fallacy,  as  he 
humbly  ventured  to  think,  in  the  argument  of  very  learned  and 
most  respectable  persons,  on  this  subject.  That  argument  alleges, 
that  the  States  have  a  concurrent  power  with  Congress,  of  regula- 
ting commerce;  and  its  proof  of  this  position  is,  that  the  States  have, 
without  any  question  of  their  right,  passed  acts  respecting  turnpike 
23 


178 

i 

roads,  toll  bridges,  and  ferries.  These  are  declared  to  be  acts  of 
commercial  regulation,  affecting  not  only  the  interior  commerce  of 
the  State  itself,  but  also  commerce  between  different  States.  There- 
fore, as  all  these  are  commercial  regulations,  and  are  yet  acknow- 
ledged to  be  rightfully  established  by  the  States,  it  follows,  as  is 
supposed,  that  the  States  must  have  a  concurrent  power  to  regulate 
commerce. 

Now,  what  was  the  inevitable  consequence  of  this  mode  of  rea- 
soning? Does  it  not  admit  the  power  of  Congress,  at  once,  upon 
all  these  minor  objects  of  legislation?  If  all  these  be  regulations  of 
commerce,  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  then,  certainly, 
Congress  having  a  concurrent  power  to  regulate  commerce,  may 
establish  ferries,  turnpikes,  bridges,  &c.  and  provide  for  all  this  de- 
tail of  interior  legislation.  To  sustain  the  interference  of  the  State, 
in  a  high  concern  of  maritime  commerce,  the  argument  adopts  a 
principle  which  acknowledges  the  right  of  Congress,  over  a  vast 
scope  of  internal  legislation,  which  no  one  has  heretofore  supposed 
to  be  within  its  powers.  But  this  is  not  all;  for  it  is  admitted,  that 
when  Congress  and  the  States  have  power  to  legislate  over  the  same 
subject,  the  power  of  Congress,  when  exercised,  controls  or  extin- 
guishes the  State  power;  and,  therefore,  the  consequence  would 
seem  to  follow,  from  the  argument,  that  all  State  legislation,  over 
such  subjects  as  have  been  mentioned,  is,  at  all  times,  liable  to  the 
superior  power  of  Congress;  a  consequence,  which  no  one  would 
admit  for  a  moment.  The  truth  was,  he  thought,  that  all  these 
things  were,  in  their  general  character,  rather  regulations  of  police 
than  of  commerce,  in  the  constitutional  understanding  of  that  term. 
A  road,  indeed,  might  be  a  matter  of  great  commercial  concern. 
In  many  cases  it  is  so;  and  when  it  is  so,  he  thought  there  was  no 
doubt  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  make  it.  But,  generally  speak- 
ing, roads,  and  bridges,  and  ferries,  though,  of  course,  they  affect 
commerce  and  intercourse,  do  not  obtain  that  importance  and  eleva- 
tion, as  to  be  deemed  commercial  regulations.  A  reasonable  con- 
struction must  be  given  to  the  constitution;  and  such  construction 
is  as  necessary  to  the  just  power  of  the  States,  as  to  the  authority 
of  Congress.  Quarantine  laws,  for  example,  may  be  considered  as 
affecting  commerce;  yet  they  are,  in  their  nature,  health  laws.  In 
England,  we  speak  of  the  power  of  regulating  commerce,  as  in 
Parliament,  or  the  King,  as  arbiter  of  commerce;  yet  the  city  of 
London  enacts  health  laws.  Would  any  one  infer  from  that  circum- 
stance, that  the  city  of  London  had  concurrent  power  with  Parlia- 
ment or  the  Crown  to  regulate  commerce'?  or,  that  it  might  grant  a 
monoply  of  the  navigation  of  the  Thames?  While  a  health  law  is 
reasonable,  it  is  a  health  law;  but  if,  under  color  of  it,  enactments 
should  be  made  for  other  purposes,  such  enactments  might  be  void. 

In  the  discussion  in  the  New  York  Courts,  no  small  reliance  was 
placed  on  the  law  of  that  State  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves, 
as  an  example  of  a  commercial  regulation,  enacted  by  State  author- 
ity. That  law  may  or  may  not  be  constitutional  and  valid.  It  has 
been  referred  to  generally,  but  its  particular  provisions  have  not 
been  stated.  When  they  are  more  clearly  seen,  its  character  may 
be  better  determined. 


179 

It  might  further  be  argued,  that  the  power  of  Congress  over  these 
high  branches  of  commerce  was  exclusive,  from  the  consideration 
that  Congress  possessed  an  exclusive  admiralty  jurisdiction.  That 
it  did  possess  such  exclusive  jurisdiction,  would  hardly  be  contested. 
No  State  pretended  to  exercise  any  jurisdiction  of  that  kind.  The 
States  had  abolished  their  Courts  of  Admiralty,  when  the  constitu- 
tion went  into  operation.  Over  these  waters,  therefore,  or,  at  least, 
some  of  them,  which  are  the  subject  of  this  monoply,  New  York 
has  no  jurisdiction  whatever.  They  are  a  part  of  the  high  sea,  and 
not  within  the  body  of  any  county.  The  authorities  of  that  State 
could  not  punish  for  a  murder,  committed  on  board  one  of  these 
boats,  in  some  places  within  the  range  of  this  exclusive  grant.  This 
restraining  of  the  States  from  all  jurisdiction,  out  of  the  bodies  of 
their  own  counties,  shows  plainly  enough,  that  navigation  on  the 
high  seas,  was  understood  to  be  a  matter  to  be  regulated  only  by 
Congress.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  say,  that  what  are  called  the 
waters  of  New  York,  are,  to  purposes  of  navigation  and  commer- 
cial regulation,  the  waters  of  the  United  States.  There  is  no  ces- 
sion, indeed,  of  the  waters  themselves,  but  their  use,  for  those 
purposes,  seemed  to  be  entrusted  to  the  exclusive  power  of  Con- 
gress. Several  States  have  enacted  laws,  which  would  appear  to 
imply  their  conviction  of  the  power  of  Congress,  over  navigable 
waters,  to  a  greater  extent. 

If  there  be  a  concurrent  power  of  regulating  commerce  on  the 
high  seas,  there  must  be  a  concurrent  admiralty  jurisdiction,  and  a 
concurrent  control  of  the  waters.  It  is  a  common  principle,  that 
arms  of  the  sea,  including  navigable  rivers,  belong  to  the  sovereign, 
so  far  as  navigation  is  concerned.  Their  use  is  navigation.  The 
United  States  possess  the  general  power  over  navigation,  and,  of 
course,  ought  to  control,  in  general,  the  use  of  navigable  waters. 
If  it  be  admitted,  that  for  purposes  of  trade  and  navigation,  the  North 
River,  and  its  bay,  are  the  river  and  bay  of  New  York,  and  the 
Chesapeake  the  bay  of  Virginia,  very  great  inconveniences  and 
much  confusion  might  be  the  result. 

It  might  now  be  well  to  take  a  nearer  view  of  these  laws,  to  see 
more  exactly  what  their  provisions  were,  what  consequences  have 
followed  from  them,  and  what  would  and  might  follow  from  other 
similar  laws. 

The  first  grant  to  John  Fitch,  gave  him  the  sole  and  exclusive 
right  of  making,  employing,  and  navigating,  all  boats  impelled  by 
fire  or  steam,  "  in  all  creeks,  Avers,  bays,  and  waters,  within  the  terri- 
tory and  jurisdiction  of  the  State."  Any  other  person,  navigating 
such  boat,  was  to  forfeit  it,  and  to  pay  a  penalty  of  a  hundred 
pounds.  The  subsequent  acts  repeal  this,  and  grant  similar  privi- 
leges to  Livingston  and  Fulton :  and  the  act  of  1811  provides  the 
extraordinary  and  summary  remedy,  which  has  been  already  stated. 
The  river,  the  bay,  and  the  marine  league  along  the  shore,  are  all 
within  the  scope  of  this  grant.  Any  vessel,  therefore,  of  this  de- 
scription, coming  into  any  of  those  waters,  without  a  license,  whether 
from  another  State,  or  from  abroad,  whether  it  be  a  public  or  private 
vessel,  is  instantly  forfeited  to  the  grantees  of  the  monopoly. 


180 

Now,  it  must  be  remembered,  that  this  grant  is  made  as  an  exer- 
cise of  sovereign  political  power.  It  is  not  an  inspection  law,  nor  a 
health  law,  nor  passed  by  any  derivative  authority;  it  is  professedly 
an  act  of  sovereign  power.  Of  course,  there  is  no  limit  to  the  pow- 
er, to  be  derived  from  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  exercised.  If  ex- 
ercised for  one  purpose,  it  may  be  also  for  another.  No  one  can 
inquire  into  the  motives  which  influence  sovereign  authority.  It  is 
enough,  that  such  power  manifests  its  will.  The  motive  alleged  in 
this  case  is,  to  remunerate  the  grantees  for  a  benefit  conferred  by 
them  on  the  public.  But  there  is  no  necessary  connexion  between 
that  benefit  and  this  mode  of  rewarding  it;  and  if  the  State  could 
grant  this  monopoly  for  that  purpose,  it  could  also  grant  it  for  any 
other  purpose.  It  could  make  the  grant  for  money;  and  so  make 
the  monopoly  of  navigation  over  those  waters  a  direct  source  of 
revenue.  When  this  monopoly  shall  expire,  in  1838,  the  State  may 
continue  it,  for  any  pecuniary  consideration  which  the  holders  may 
see  fit  to  offer,  and  the  State  to  receive. 

If  the  State  may  grant  this  monopoly,  it  may  also  grant  another, 
for  other  descriptions  of  vessels;  for  instance,  for  all  sloops. 

If  it  can  grant  these  exclusive  privileges  to  a  few,  it  may  grant 
them  to  many;  that  is,  it  may  grant  them  to  all  its  own  citizens,  to 
the  exclusion  of  everybody  else. 

But  the  waters  of  New  York  are  no  more  the  subject  of  exclu- 
sive grants  by  that  State,  than  the  waters  of  other  States  are  subjects 
of  such  grants  by  those  other  States.  Virginia  may  well  exercise, 
over  the  entrance  of  the  Chesapeake,  all  the  power  that  New  York 
can  exercise  over  the  bay  of  New  York,  and  the  waters  on  the 
shore.  The  Chesapeake,  therefore,  upon  the  principle  of  these 
laws,  may  be  the  subject  of  State  monopoly;  and  so  may  the  bay  of 
Massachusetts.  But  this  is  not  all.  It  requires  no  greater  power, 
to  grant  a  monopoly  of  trade,  than  a  monopoly  of  navigation.  Of 
course,  New  York,  if  these  acts  can  be  maintained,  may  give  an 
exclusive  right  of  entry  of  vessels  into  her  ports.  And  the  other 
States  may  do  the  same.  These  are  not  extreme  cases.  We  have 
only  to  suppose  that  other  States  should  do  what  New  York  has 
already  done,  and  that  the  power  should  be  carried  to  its  full  extent. 

To  all  this,  there  is  no  answer  to  be  given  except  this,  that  the 
concurrent  power  of  the  States,  concurrent  though  it  be,  is  yet  subor- 
dinate to  the  legislation  of  Congress;  and  that,  therefore,  Congress 
may,  when  it  pleases,  annul  the  State  legislation;  but,  until  it  does 
so  annul  it,  the  State  legislation  is  valid  and  effectual.  What  is 
there  to  recommend  a  construction  which  leads  to  a  result  like  this? 
Here  would  be  a  perpetual  hostility;  one  Legislature  enacting  laws, 
till  another  Legislature  should  repeal  them;  one  sovereign  power 
giving  the  rule,  till  another  sovereign  power  should  abrogate  it;  and 
all  this  under  the  idea  of  concurrent  legislation! 

But  further;  under  this  concurrent  power,  the  State  does  that  which 
Congress  cannot  do;  that  is,  it  gives  preferences  to  the  citizens  of 
some  States  over  those  of  others.  I  do  not  mean  here  the  advan- 
tages conferred  by  the  grant  on  the  grantees;  but  the  disadvantages 
to  which  it  subjects  all  the  other  citizens  of  New  York      To  impose 


181 

an  extraordinary  tax  on  steam  navigation  visiting  the  ports  of  New 
York,  and  leaving  it  free  everywhere  else,  is  giving  a  preference 
to  the  citizens  of  other  States  over  those  of  New  York.  This  Con- 
gress could  not  do;  and  yet  the  State  does  it:  so  that  this  power,  at 
first  subordinate,  then  concurrent,  now  becomes  paramount. 

The  people  of  New  York  have  a  right  to  be  protected  against 
this  monopoly.  It  is  one  of  the  objects  for  which  they  agreed  to 
this  constitution,  that  they  should  stand  on  an  equality  in  commer- 
cial regulations;  and  if  the  government  should  not  insure  them  that, 
the  promises  made  to  them,  in  its  behalf,  would  not  be  performed. 

He  contended,  therefore,  in  conclusion  on  this  point,  that  the 
power  of  Congress  over  these  high  branches  of  commercial  regula- 
tion, was  shown  to  be  exclusive,  by  considering  what  was  wished 
and  intended  to  be  done,  when  the  convention,  for  forming  the  con- 
stitution, was  called;  by  what  was  understood,  in  the  State  conven- 
tions, to  have  been  accomplished  by  the  instrument;  by  the  prohi- 
bitions on  the  States,  and  the  express  exception  relative  to  inspection 
laws;  by  the  nature  of  the  power  itself;  by  the  terms  used,  as 
connected  with  the  nature  of  the  power;  by  the  subsequent  under- 
standing and  practice,  both  of  Congress  and  the  States;  by  the 
grant  of  exclusive  admiralty  jurisdiction  to  the  federal  government; 
by  the  manifest  danger  of  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  the  ruinous 
consequences  to  which  it  directly  leads. 

It  required  little  now  to  be  said,  to  prove  that  this  exclusive  grant 
is  a  law  regulating  commerce;  although,  in  some  of  the  discussions 
elsewhere,  it  had  been  called  a  law  of  po/ice.  If  it  be  not  a  regula- 
tion of  commerce,  then  it  follows,  against  the  constant  admission  on 
the  other  side,  that  Congress,  even  by  an  express  act,  could  not 
annul  or  control  it.  For  if  it  be  not  a  regulation  of  commerce, 
Congress  has  no  concern  with  it.  But  the  granting  of  monopolies 
of  this  kind  is  always  referred  to  the  power  over  commerce.  It 
was  as  arbiter  of  commerce  that  the  King  formerly  granted  such 
monopolies.*  This  is  a  law  regulating  commerce,  inasmuch  as  it 
imposes  new  conditions  and  terms  on  the  coasting  trade,  on  foreign 
trade  generally,  and  on  foreign  trade  as  regulated  by  treaties; 
and  inasmuch  as  it  interferes  with  the  free  navigation  of  navigable 
waters. 

If,  then,  the  power  of  commercial  regulation,  possessed  by  Con- 
gress, be,  in  regard  to  the  great  branches  of  it,  exclusive;  and  if 
this  grant  of  New  York  be  a  commercial  regulation,  affecting  com- 
merce, in  respect  to  these  great  branches,  then  the  grant  is  void, 
whether  any  case  of  actual  collision  had  happened  or  not. 

But,  he  contended,  in  the  second  place,  that  whether  the  grant 
were  to  be  regarded  as  wholly  void  or  not,  it  must,  at  least,  be  in- 
operative, when  the  rights  claimed  under  it  came  in  collision  with 
other  rights,  enjoyed  and  secured  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States;  and  such  collision,  he  maintained,  clearly  existed  in  this 
case.  It  would  not  be  denied  that  the  law  of  Congress  was  para- 
mount. The  constitution  has  expressly  provided  for  that.  So 
that  the  only  question  in  this  part  of  the  case  is,  whether  the  two 
rights  be  inconsistent  with  each  other.  The  appellant  had  a  right 
*  1  Bl.  Com.  273.     4  Bl.  Com.  160. 


182 

to  go  from  New  Jersey  to  New  York,  in  a  vessel,  owned  by  him- 
self, of  the  proper  legal  description,  and  enrolled  and  licensed  ac- 
cording to  law.  This  tight  belonged  to  him  as  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  derived  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
and  no  act  of  the  Legislature  of  New  York  can  deprive  him  of  it, 
any  more  than  such  act  could  deprive  him  of  the  right  of  holding 
lands  in  that  State,  or  of  suing  in  its  Courts.  It  appears  from  the 
record,  that  the  boat  in  question  was  regularly  enrolled,  at  Perth 
Amboy,  and  properly  licensed  for  carrying  on  the  coasting  trade. 
Under  this  enrolment,  and  with  this  license,  she  was  proceeding  to 
New  York,  when  she  was  stopped  by  the  injunction  of  the  Chan- 
cellor, on  the  application  of  the  New  York  grantees.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  here  is  a  collision,  in  fact;  that  which  the  appellant 
claimed  as  a  right,  the  respondent  resisted;  and  there  remains  nothing 
now  but  to  determine,  whether  the  appellant  had,  as  he  contends, 
a  right  to  navigate  these  waters;  because,  if  he  had  such  right,  it 
must  prevail.  Now,  this  right  was  expressly  conferred  by  the  laws 
of  the  United  States.  The  first  section  of  the  act  of  February, 
1793,  c.  8.  regulating  the  coasting  trade  and  fisheries,  declares, 
that  all  ships  and  vessels,  enrolled  and  licensed  as  that  act  provides, 
"  and  no  others,  shall  be  deemed  ships  or  vessels  of  the  United 
States,  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  ships  or  vessels  employed  in  the 
coasting  trade  or  fisheries."  The  fourth  section  of  the  same  de- 
clares, "  that  in  order  to  the  licensing  of  any  ship  or  vessel,  for 
carrying  on  the  coasting  trade  or  fisheries,"  bond  shall  be  given, 
&c.  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  act.  And  the  same  section 
declares,  that  the  owner  having  complied  with  the  requisites  of  the 
law,  "it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Collector  to  grant  a  license  for 
carrying  on  the  coasting  trade;"  and  the  act  proceeds  to  give  the 
form  and  words  of  the  license,  which  is,  therefore,  of  course,  to  be 
received  as  a  part  of  the  act;  and  the  words  of  the  license,  after 
the  necessary  recitals,  are,  "  license  is  hereby  granted  for  the  said 
vessel  to  be  employed  in  carrying  on  the  coasting  trade." 

Words  could  not  make  this  authority  more  express. 

The  Court  below  seemed  to  him,  with  great  deference,  to  have 
mistaken  the  object  and  nature  of  the  license.  It  seemed  to  have 
been  of  opinion  that  the  license  had  no  other  intent  or  effect  than 
to  ascertain  the  ownership  and  character  of  the  vessel.  But  this 
was  the  peculiar  office  and  object  of  the  enrolment.  That  document 
ascertains  that  the  regular  proof  of  ownership  and  character  has 
been  given;  and  the  license  is  given,  to  confer  the  right,  to  which 
the  party  has  shown  himself  entitled.  It  is  the  authority  which  the 
master  carries  with  him,  to  prove  his  right  to  navigate  freely  the  wa- 
ters of  the  United  States,  and  to  carry  on  the  coasting  trade. 

In  some  of  the  discussions  which  had  been  had  on  this  question, 
it  had  been  said,  that  Congress  had  only  provided  for  ascertaining 
the  ownership  and  property  of  vessels,  but  had  not  prescribed  to 
what  use  they  might  be  applied.  But  this  he  thought  an  obvious 
error;  the  whole  object  of  the  act  regulating  the  coasting  trade,  was 
to  declare  what  vessels  shall  enjoy  the  benefit  of  being  used  in  the 
coasting  trade.  To  secure  this  me  to  certain  vessels,  and  to  deny 
it  to  others,  was  precisely  the  purpose  for  which  the  act  was  passed. 


183 

The  error,  or  what  he  humbly  supposed  to  be  the  error,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Court  below,  consisted  in  that  Court's  having  thought, 
that  although  Congress  might  act,  it  had  not  yet  acted,  in  such  a  way 
as  to  confer  a  right  on  the  appellant:  whereas,  if  a  right  was  not 
given  by  this  law,  it  never  could  be  given;  no  law  could  be  more 
express.  It  had  been  admitted,  that  supposing  there  was  a  provision 
in  the  act  of  Congress,  that  all  vessels  duly  licensed  should  be  at 
liberty  to  navigate,  for  the  purpose  of  trade  and  commere,  over  all 
the  navigable  harbours,  bays,  rivers  and  lakes,  within  the  several 
States,  any  law  of  the  States,  creating  particular  privileges  as  to 
any  particular  class  of  vessels,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the 
only  question  that  could  arise,  in  such  a  case,  would  be,  whether 
the  law  was  constitutional;  and  that  if  that  was  to  be  granted  or  de- 
cided, it  would  certainly,  in  all  Courts  and  places,  overrule  and  set 
aside  the  State  grant. 

Now,  he  did  not  see  that  such  supposed  case  could  be  distinguished 
from  the  present.  We  show  a  provision  in  an  act  of  Congress,  that 
all  vessels,  duly  licensed,  may  carry  on  the  coasting  trade;  nobody 
doubts  the  constitutional  validity  of  that  law;  and  we  show  that  this 
vessel  was  duly  licensed  according  to  its  provisions.  This  is  all 
that  is  essential  in  the  case  supposed.  The  presence  or  absence  of 
a  non  obstante  clause,  cannot  affect  the  extent  or  operation  of  the  act 
of  Congress.  Congress  has  no  power  of  revoking  State  laws,  as  a 
distinct  power.  It  legislates  over  subjects;  and  over  those  subjects 
which  are  within  its  power,  its  legislation  is  supreme,  and  necessa- 
rily overrules  all  inconsistent  or  repugnant  State  legislation.  If 
Congress  were  to  pass  an  act  expressly  revoking  or  annulling,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  this  New  York  grant,  such  an  act  would  be  wholly 
useless  and  inoperative.  If  the  New  York  grant  be  opposed  to,  or 
inconsistent  with,  any  constitutional  power  which  Congress  has  ex- 
ercised, then,  so  far  as  the  incompatibility  exists,  the  grant  is  nuga- 
tory and  void,  necessarily,  and  by  reason  of  the  supremacy  of  the 
law  of  Congress.  But  if  the  grant  be  not  inconsistent  with  any  exer- 
cise of  the  powers  of  Congress,  then,  certainly,  Congress  has  no 
authority  to  revoke  or  annul  it.  Such  an  act  of  Congress,  therefore, 
would  be  either  unconstitutional  or  supererogatory.  The  laws  of 
Congress  need  no  non  obstante  clause.  The  constitution  makes  them 
supreme,  when  State  laws  come  into  opposition  to  them;  so  that  in 
these  cases  there  is  no  question  except  this,  whether  there  be,  or  be 
not,  a  repugnancy  or  hostility  between  the  law  of  Congress  and  the 
law  of  the  State.  Nor  is  it  at  all  material,  in  this  view,  whether 
the  law  of  the  State  be  a  law  regulating  commerce,  or  a  law  of  po- 
lice, or  by  whatever  other  name  or  character  it  may  be  designated. 
If  its  provisions  be  inconsistent  with  an  act  of  Congress,  they  are 
void,  so  far  as  that  inconsistency  extends.  The  whole  argument, 
therefore,  is  substantially  and  effectually  given  up,  when  it  is  admit- 
ted, that  Congress  might,  by  express  terms,  abrogate  the  State  grant, 
or  declare  that  it  should  not  stand  in  the  way  of  its  own  legislation; 
because,  such  express  terms  would  add  nothing  to  the  effect  and 
operation  of  an  act  of  Congress. 

He  contended,  therefore,  upon  the  whole  of  this  point,  that  a  case 
of  actual  collision  had  been  made  out,  in  this  case,  between  the 


184 

State  grant  and  the  act  of  Congress;  and  as  the  act  of  Congress  was 
entirely  unexceptionable,  and  clearly  in  pursuance  of  its  constitu- 
tional powers,  the  State  grant  must  yield. 

There  were  other  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  had  more  or  less  bearing  on  this  question:  "  No  State 
shall,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  duty  of  tonnage." 
Under  color  of  grants  like  this,  that  prohibition  might  be  wholly 
evaded.  This  grant  authorises  Messrs.  Livingston  and  Fulton  to 
license  navigation  in  the  waters  of  New  York.  They,  of  course, 
license  it  on  their  own  terms.  They  may  require  a  pecuniary  con- 
sideration, ascertained  by  the  tonnage  of  the  vessel,  or  in  any  other 
manner.  Probably,  in  fact,  they  govern  themselves,  in  this  respect, 
by  the  size  or  tonnage  of  the  vessels,  to  which  they  grant  licenses. 
Now,  what  is  this  but  substantially  a  tonnage  duty,  under  the  law 
of  the  State?  Or  does  it  make  any  difference,  whether  the  receipts 
go  directly  to  her  own  treasury,  or  to  the  hands  of  those  to  whom 
she  has  made  the  grant? 

There  was,  lastly,  that  provision  of  the  constitution  which  gives 
Congress  power  to  promote  the  progress  of  science  and  the  useful 
arts,  by  securing  to  authors  and  inventors,  for  a  limited  time,  an  ex- 
clusive right  to  their  own  writings  and  discoveries.  Congress  had 
exercised  this  power,  and  made  all  the  provisions  which  it  deemed 
useful  or  necessary.  The  States  might,  indeed,  like  munificent  in- 
dividuals, exercise  their  own  bounty  towards  authors  and  inventors, 
at  their  own  discretion.  But  to  confer  reward  by  exclusive  grants, 
even  if  it  were  but  a  part  of  the  use  of  the  writing  or  invention,  was 
not  supposed  to  be  a  power  properly  to  be  exercised  by  the  States. 
Much  less  could  they,  under  the  notion  of  conferring  rewards  in 
such  cases,  grant  monopolies,  the  enjoyment  of  which  should  be 
essentially  incompatible  with  the  exercise  of  rights  holden  under  the 
laws  of  the  United  States.  He  should  insist,  however,  the  less  on 
these  points,  as  they  were  open  to  counsel,  who  would  come  after 
him,  on  the  same  side,  and  as  he  had  said  so  much  upon  what  ap- 
peared to  him  the  more  important  and  interesting  part  of  the  argu- 
ment. 


ARGUMENT 


IN  THE  CASE  OF   OGDEN  vs.  SAUNDERS,  IN   THE  SUPREME   COURT 
OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUARY  TERM,  1827. 

This  was  an  action  of  Assumpsit  brought  originally  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Louisiana 
by  Saunders,  a  citizen  of  Kentucky,  against  Ogden,  a  citizen  of  Louisiana.  The  plaintiff 
below  declared  upon  certain  bills  of  exchange,  drawn  on  the  30th  of  September,  1806,  by 
one  Jordan,  at  Lexington,  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  upon  die  defendant  below,  Ogden,  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  (the  defendant  then  being  a  citizen  and  resident  of  the  State  of  New 
York,)  accepted  by  him  at  the  city  of  New  York,  and  protested  for  non-payment. 

The  defendant  below  pleaded  several  pleas,  among  which  was  a  certificate  of  discharge 
under  the  act  of  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York,  of  April  3d,  1801,  for  the  relief 
of  insolvent  debtors,  commonly  called  the  threefourths  act. 

The  jury  found  the  facts  in  the  form  of  a  special  verdict,  on  which  the  Court  rendered  a 
judgment  fur  the  plaintiff  below,  and  the  cause  was  brought  by  writ  of  error  before  this 
Court.  The  question,  which  arose  under  thi3  plea  as  to  the  validity  of  the  law  of  New 
York  as  being  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  was  argued  at  February 
term,  1824,  by  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  D.  B.  Ogden,  and  Mr.  Haines,  for  the  plaintiff  in  error, 
and  by  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Wheaton,  for  the  defendant  in  error,  and  the  cause  was 
continued  for  advisement  until  the  present  term.  It  was  again  argued  at  the  present  term,  by 
Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Wheaton,  against  the  validity,  and  by  the  Attorney  General,  Mr. 
E.  Livingston,  Mr.  D.  B.  Ogden,  Mr.  Jones,  and  Mr.  Sampson,  for  die  validity. 

Mr.  Wheaton  opened  the  argument  for  the  defendant  in  error ;  he  was  followed  by  the 
counsel  for  die  plaintiff  in  error ;  and  Mr.  Webster  replied  as  follows  : 

The  question  arising  in  this  case  is  not  more  important,  nor  so 
important  even,  in  its  bearing  on  individual  cases  of  private  right, 
as  in  its  character  of  a  public  political  question.  The  constitution 
was  intended  to  accomplish  a  great  political  object.  Its  design  was 
not  so  much  to  prevent  injustice  or  injury  in  one  case,  or  in  suc- 
cessive single  cases,  as  it  was  to  make  general  salutary  provisions, 
which,  in  their  operation,  should  give  security  to  all  contracts,  sta- 
bility to  credit,  uniformity  among  all  the  States,  in  those  things  which 
materially  concerned  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  country,  and  their 
own  credit,  trade,  and  intercourse  among  themselves.  The  real 
question  is,  therefore,  a  much  broader  one  than  has  been  argued. 
It  is  this,  whether  the  constitution  has  not,  for  general  political  pur- 
poses, ordained  that  bankrupt  laws  should  be  established  only  by  na- 
tional authority  ?  We  contend  that  such  was  the  intention  of  the 
constitution;  an  intention,  as  we  think,  plainly  manifested  by  a  con- 
sideration of  its  several  provisions 

24  o* 


186 

The  act  of  New  York,  under  which  this  question  arises,  provides, 
that  a  debtor  may  be  discharged  from  all  his  debts,  upon  assigning 
his  property  to  trustees  for  the  use  of  his  creditors.  When  applied 
to  the  discharge  of  debts,  contracted  before  the  date  of  the  law,  this 
Court  has  decided  that  the  act  is  invalid.*  The  act  itself  makes  no 
distinction  between  past  and  future  debts,  but  provides  for  the  dis- 
charge of  both  in  the  same  manner.  In  the  case,  then,  of  a  debt 
already  existing,  it  is  admitted,  that  the  act  does  impair  the  obliga- 
tion of  contracts.  We  wish  the  full  extent  of  this  decision  to  be 
well  considered.  It  is  not,  merely,  that  the  legislature  of  the  State 
cannot  interfere,  by  law,  in  the  particular  case  of  A.  or  B.,  to  injure 
or  impair  rights  which  have  become  vested  under  contracts;  but  it 
is,  that  they  have  no  power,  by  general  law,  to  regulate  the  manner 
in  which  all  debtors  may  be  discharged  from  subsisting  contracts;  in 
other  words,  they  cannot  pass  general  bankrupt  laws,  to  be  applied 
inpresenti.  Now,  it  is  not  contended  that  such  laws  are  unjust,  and 
ought  not  to  be  passed  by  any  legislature.  It  is  not  said  they  are  un- 
wise or  impolitic.  On  the  contrary,  we  know  the  general  experience 
is,  that  when  bankrupt  laws  are  established,  they  make  no  distinction 
between  present  and  future  debts.  While  all  agree  that  special 
acts,  made  for  individual  cases,  are  unjust,  all  admit  that  a  general 
law,  made  for  all  cases,  may  be  both  just  and  politic.  The  ques- 
tion, then,  which  meets  us  in  the  threshold,  is  this:  if  the  constitu- 
tion meant  to  leave  the  States  the  power  of  establishing  systems  of 
bankruptcy  to  act  upon  future  debts,  what  great  or  important  object, 
of  a  political  nature,  was  answered,  by  denying  the  power  of  making 
such  systems  applicable  to  existing  debts? 

The  argument  used  in  Sturges  vs.  Croinunshield,  was,  at  least,  a 
plausible  and  consistent  argument.  It  maintained,  that  the  prohibi- 
tion of  the  constitution  was  levelled  only  against  interferences  in 
individual  cases,  and  did  not  apply  to  general  laws,  whether  those 
laws  were  retrospective  or  prospective  in  their  operation.  But  the 
Court  rejected  that  conclusion.  It  decided,  that  the  constitution 
was  intended  to  apply  to  general  laws,  or  systems  of  bankruptcy;  that 
an  act,  providing  that  all  debtors  might  be  discharged  from  all  cred- 
itors, upon  certain  conditions,  was  of  no  more  validity  than  an  act, 
providing  that  a  particular  debtor,  A.,  should  be  discharged  on  the 
same  conditions  from  his  particular  creditor,  B. 

It  being  thus  decided  that  general  laws  are  thus  within  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  constitution,  it  is  for  the  plaintiff  in  error  now  to  show, 
on  what  ground,  consistent  with  the  general  objects  of  the  constitu- 
tion, he  can  establish  a  distinction,  which  can  give  effect  to  those 
general  laws  in  their  application  to  future  debts,  while  it  denies 
them  effect  in  their  application  to  subsisting  debts.  The  words  are, 
that  "  no  Slate  shall  pass  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts ." 
The  general  operation  of  all  such  laws  is,  to  impair  that  obligation; 
that  is,  to  discharge  the  obligation  without  fulfilling  it.  This  is  ad- 
mitted; and  the  only  ground  taken  for  the  distinction  to  stand  on  is, 
that  when  the  law  was  in  existence,  at  the  time  of  the  making  the 
contract,  the  parties  must  be  supposed  to  have  reference  to  it,  or,  as 
it  is  usually  expressed,  the  law  is  made  a  part  of  the  contract.     JBe- 

*  Sturges  vs   Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  Rep.  122. 


187 

fore  considering  what  foundation  there  is  for  this  argument,  it  may 
be  well  to  inquire,  what  is  that  obligation  of  contracts  of  which  the 
constitution  speaks,  and  whence  is  it  derived? 

The  definition  given  by  the  Court  in  Sturges  vs.  Crowninshield,  is 
sufficient  for  our  present  purpose.  "  A  contract,"  say  the  Court, 
"  is  an  agreement  to  do  some  particular  thing;  the  law  binds  the 
party  to  perform  this  agreement,  and  this  is  the  obligation  of  the 
contract." 

It  may,  indeed,  probably,  be  correct  to  suppose  the  constitution 
used  the  words  in  somewhat  of  a  more  popular  sense.  We  speak, 
for  example,  familiarly  of  a  usurious  contract,  and  ye'  we  say, 
speaking  technically,  that  a  usurious  agreement  is  no  contract. 

By  the  obligation  of  a  contract,  we  should  understand  the  consti- 
tution to  mean,  the  duty  of  performing  a  legal  agreement.  If  the 
contract  be  lawful,  the  party  is  bound  to  perform  it.  But  bound  by 
what  ?  What  is  it  that  binds  him?  And  this  leads  to  what  we  regard 
as  a  principal  fallacy  in  the  argument  on  the  other  side.  That  argu- 
ment supposes,  and  insists,  that  the  whole  obligation  of  a  contract 
has  its  origin  in  the  municipal  law.  This  position  we  controvert. 
We  do  not  say  that  it  is  that  obligation  which  springs  from  conscience 
merely;  but  we  deny  that  it  is  only  such  as  springs  from  the  particu- 
lar law  of  the  place  where  the  contract  is  made.  It  must  be  a  law- 
ful contract,  doubtless;  that  is,  permitted  and  allowed;  because 
society  has  a  right  to  prohibit  all  such  contracts,  as  well  as  all  such 
actions,  as  it  deems  to  be  mischievous  or  injurious.  But  if  the  con- 
tract be  such  as  the  law  of  society  tolerates,  in  other  words,  if  it  be 
lawful,  then  we  say,  the  duty  of  performing  it  springs  from  universal 
law.     And  this  is  the  concurrent  sense  of  all  the  writers  of  authority 

The  duty  of  performing  promises  is  thus  shown  to  rest  on  universal 
law;  and  if,  departing  from  this  well  established  principle,  we  now 
follow  the  teachers  who  instruct  us  that  the  obligation  of  a  contract 
has  its  origin  in  the  law  of  a  particular  State,  and  is,  in  all  cases, 
what  that  law  makes  it,  and  no  more,  and  no  less,  we  shall  probably 
find  ourselves  involved  in  inexplicable  difficulties.  A  man  promises, 
for  a  valuable  consideration,  to  pay  money  in  New  York;  is  the  ob- 
ligation of  that  contract  created  by  the  laws  of  that  State  ?  or  does 
it  subsist  independent  of  those  laws?  We  contend  that  the  obliga- 
tion of  a  contract,  that  is,  the  duty  of  performing  it,  is  not  created 
by  the  law  of  the  particular  place  where  it  is  made,  and  dependent  on 
that  law  for  its  existence;  but  that  it  may  subsist,  and  does  subsist, 
without  that  law,  and  independent  of  it.  The  obligation  is  in  the  con- 
tract itself,  in  the  assent  of  the  parties,  and  in  the  sanction  of  universal 
law.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Groiius,  Vaitel,  Burlemaqui,  Pothier,  and 
Rutherforth.  The  contract,  doubtless,  is  necessarily  to  be  enforced 
by  the  municipal  law  of  the  place  where  performance  is  demanded. 
The  municipal  law  acts  on  the  contract  after  it  is  made,  to  compel 
its  execution,  or  give  damages  for  its  violation.  But  this  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  the  same  law,  being  the  origin  or  fountain  of 
the  contract.  Let  us  illustrate  this  matter  by  an  example.  Two 
persons  contract  together  in  New  York  for  the  delivery,  by  one  to 
the  other,  of  a  domestic  animal  or  utensil  of  husbandry,  or  a  weapon 
of  war.     This  is  a  lawful  contract,  and  while  the  parties  remain  in 


188 

New  York,  it  is  to  be  enforced  by  the  laws  of  that  State.  But  if 
they  remove  with  the  article  to  Pennsylvania  or  Maryland,  there  a 
new  law  comes  to  act  upon  the  contract,  and  to  apply  other  reme- 
dies if  it  be  broken.  Thus  far  the  remedies  are  furnished  by  the 
laws  of  society.  But  suppose  the  same  parties  to  go  together  to  a 
savage  wilderness,  or  a  desert  island,  beyond  the  reach  of  the  laws 
of  any  society;  the  obligation  of  the  contract  still  subsists,  and  is  as 
perfect  as  ever,  and  is  now  to  be  enforced  by  another  law,  that  is, 
the  law  of  nature,  and  the  party  to  whom  the  promise  was  made, 
has  a  right  to  take  by  force  the  animal,  the  utensil,  or  the  weapon, 
that  was  promised  to  him.  The  right  is  as  perfect  here,  as  it  was 
in  Pennsylvania,  or  even  in  New  York;  but  this  could  not  be  so  if 
the  obligation  were  created  by  the  law  of  New  York,  or  were  de- 
pendent on  that  law  for  its  existence,  because  the  laws  of  that  State 
can  have  no  operation  beyond  its  territory.  Let  us  reverse  this  ex- 
ample. Suppose  a  contract  to  be  made  between  two  persons  cast 
ashore  on  an  uninhabited  territory,  or  in  a  place  over  which  no  law 
of  society  extends.  There  are  such  places,  and  contracts  have  been 
made  there  by  individuals  casually  there,  and  these  Contracts  have 
been  enforced  in  Courts  of  law  in  civilized  communities.  Whence 
do  such  contracts  derive  their  obligation,  if  not  from  universal  law? 

If  these  considerations  show  us  that  the  obligation  of  a  lawful  con- 
tract does  not  derive  its  force  from  the  particular  law  of  the  place 
where  made,  but  may  exist  where  that  law  does  not  exist,  and  be 
enforced  where  that  law  has  no  validity,  then  it  follows,  we  contend, 
that  any  statute  which  diminishes  or  lessens  its  obligation,  does  im- 
pair it,  whether  it  precedes  or  succeeds  the  contract  in  date.  The 
contract  having  an  independent  origin,  whenever  the  law  comes  to 
exist  together  with  it,  and  interferes  with  it,  it  lessens,  we  say,  and 
impairs  its  own  original  and  independent  obligation.  In  the  case 
before  the  Court,  the  contract  did  not  owe  its  existence  to  the  par- 
ticular law  of  New  York;  it  did  not  depend  on  that  law,  but  could 
be  enforced  without  the  territory  of  that  State,  as  well  as  within  it. 
Nevertheless,  though  legal,  though  thus  independently  existing, 
though  thus  binding  the  party  everywhere,  and  capable  of  being  en- 
forced everywhere,  yet,  the  statute  of  New  York  says,  that  it  shall 
be  discharged  without  payment.  This,  we  say,  impairs  the  obliga- 
tion of  that  contract.  It  is  admitted  to  have  been  legal  in  its  incep- 
tion, legal  in  its  full  extent,  and  capable  of  being  enforced  by  other 
tribunals  according  to  its  terms.  An  act,  then,  purporting  to  dis- 
charge it  without  payment,  is,  as  we  contend,  an  act  impairing  its 
obligation. 

But  here  we  meet  the  opposite  argument,  stated  on  different  oc- 
casions in  different  terms,  but  usually  summed  up  in  this,  that  the 
law  itself  is  a  part  of  the  contract,  and,  therefore,  cannot  impair  it. 
What  does  this  mean  ?  Let  us  seek  for  clear  ideas.  It  does  not 
mean  that  theflaw  gives  any  particular  construction  to  the  terms  of 
the  contract,  or  that  it  makes  the  promise,  or  the  consideration,  or 
the  time  of  performance,  other  than  they  are  expressed  in  the  instru- 
ment itself.  It  can  only  mean,  that  it  is  to  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the 
contract,  or  understanding  of  the  parties,  that  the  contract  itself 
shall  be  enforced  by  such  laws  and  regulations,  respecting  remedy 


189 

and  for  the  enforcement  of  contracts,  as  are  in  being  in  the  State 
where  it  is  made  at  the  time  of  entering  into  it.  This  is  meant,  or 
nothing  very  clearly  intelligible  is  meant,  by  saying  the  law  is  part 
of  the  contract. 

There  is  no  authority  in  adjudged  cases,  for  the  plaintiff  in  error, 
but  the  State  decisions  which  have  been  cited,  and,  as  has  already 
been  stated,  they  all  rest  on  this  reason,  that  the  law  is  part  of  the 
contract. 

Against  this  we  contend, 

1st.  That  if  the  proposition  were  true,  the  consequence  would  not 
follow. 

2d.  That  the  proposition  itself  cannot  be  maintained. 

1.  If  it  were  true  that  the  law  is  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
contract,  the  consequence  contended  for  would  not  follow;  because, 
if  this  statute  be  part  of  the  contract,  so  is  every  other  legal  or 
constitutional  provision  existing  at  the  time  which  affects  the  con- 
tract, or  which  is  capable  of  affecting  it;  and  especially  this  very 
article  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  is  part  of  the  con- 
tract. The  plaintiff  in  error  argues  in  a  complete  circle.  He  sup- 
poses the  parties  to  have  had  reference  to  it  because  it  was  a  binding 
law,  and  yet  he  proves  it  to  be  a  binding  law  only  upon  the  ground 
that  such  reference  was  made  to  it.  We  come  before  the  Court 
alleging  the  law  to  be  void  as  unconstitutional ;  they  stop  the  inquiry 
by  opposing  to  us  the  law  itself.  Is  this  logical?  Is  it  not  precisely 
objectio  ejus,  ctijics  dissolutio  petitur?  If  one  bring  a  bill  to  set  aside 
a  judgment,  is  that  judgment  itself  a  good  plea  in  bar  to  the  bill? 
We  propose  to  inquire  if  this  law  is  of  force  to  control  our  contract, 
or  whether,  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  such  force  be 
not  denied  to  it.  The  plaintiff  in  error  stops  us  by  saying  that  it 
does  control  the  contract,  and  so  arrives  shortly  at  the  end  of  the 
debate.  Is  it  not  obvious,  that  supposing  the  act  of  New  York  to 
be  a  part  of  the  contract,  the  question  still  remains  as  undecided  as 
ever.  What  is  that  act  ?  Is  it  a  laiv,  or  is  it  a  nullity  ?  A  thing  of 
force,  or  a  thing  of  no  force?  Suppose  the  parties  to  have  contem- 
plated this  act,  what  did  they  contemplate  ?  its  words  only,  or  its 
legal  effect  ?  its  words,  or  the  force  which  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  allowed  to  it?  If  the  parties  contemplated  any  law, 
they  contemplated  all  the  law  that  bore  on  their  contract,  the  aggre- 
gate of  all  the  statute  and  constitutional  provisions.  To  suppose 
that  they  had  in  view  one  statute,  without  regarding  others,  or  that 
they  contemplated  a  statute  without  considering  that  paramount 
constitutional  provisions  might  control  or  qualify  that  statute,  or  ab- 
rogate it  altogether,  is  unreasonable  and  inadmissible.  "  This  con- 
tract," says  one  of  the  authorities  relied  on,  "  is  to  be  construed  as  if 
the  law  were  specially  recited  in  it."  Let  it  be  so  for  the  sake  of 
argument.  But  it  is  also  to  be  construed  as  if  the  prohibitory  clause 
of  the  constitution  were  recited  in  it,  and  this  brings  us  back  again 
to  the  precise  point  from  which  we  departed. 

The  constitution  always  accompanies  the  law,  and  the  latter  can 
have  no  force  which  the  former  does  not  allow  to  it.  If  the  reasoning 
were  thrown  into  the  form  of  special  pleading,  it  would  stand  thus: 
the  plaintiff  declares  on  his  debt;  the  defendant  pleads  his  discharge 


190 

under  the  law;  the  plaintiff  alleges  the  law  unconstitutional;  but  the 
defendant  says,  you  knew  of  its  existence;  to  which  the  answer  is 
obvious  and  irresistible,  I  knew  its  existence  on  the  statute  book  of 
New  York,  but  I  knew,  at  the  same  time,  it  was  null  and  void  under 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  language  of  another  leading  decision  is,  "  a  law  in  force  at 
the  time  of  making  the  contract  does  not  violate  that  contract;"  but 
the  very  question  is,  whether  there  be  any  such  law  "  in  force?*  for 
if  the  States  have  no  authority  to  pass  such  laws,  then  no  such  law 
can  be  in  force.  The  constitution  is  a  part  of  the  contract  as  much 
as  the  law,  and  was  as  much  in  the  contemplation  of  the  parties. 
So  that  the  proposition,  if  it  be  admitted,  that  the  law  is  part  of  the 
contract,  leaves  us  just  where  it  found  us,  that  is  to  say,  under  the 
necessity  of  comparing  the  law  with  the  constitution,  and  of  decid- 
ing by  such  comparison  whether  it  be  valid  or  invalid.  If  the  law 
be  unconstitutional,  it  is  void,  and  no  party  can  be  supposed  to  have 
had  reference  to  a  void  law.  If  it  be  constitutional,  no  reference  to 
it  need  be  supposed. 

2.  But  the  proposition  itself  cannot  be  maintained.  The  law  is 
no  part  of  the  contract.  What  part  is  it  ?  the  promise  ?  the  consid- 
eration? the  condition?  Clearly,  it  is  neither  of  these.  It  is  no 
term  of  the  contract.  It  acts  upon  the  contract  only  when  it  is 
broken,  or  to  discharge  the  party  from  its  obligation  after  it  is  bro- 
ken. The  municipal  law  is  the  force  of  society  employed  to  compel 
the  performance  of  contracts.  In  every  judgment  in  a  suit  on  con- 
tract, the  damages  are  given,  and  the  imprisonment  of  the  person 
or  sale  of  goods  awarded,  not  in  performance  of  the  contract,  or  as 
part  of  the  contract,  but  as  an  indemnity  for  the  breach  of  the  con- 
tract. Even  interest,  which  is  a  strong  case,  where  it  is  not  ex- 
pressed in  the  contract  itself,  can  only  be  given  as  damages.  It  is 
nearly  absurd  to  say  that  a  man's  goods  are  sold  on  a.  fieri  facias,  or 
that  he  himself  goes  to  gaol,  in  pursuance  of  his  contract.  These 
are  the  penalties  which  the  law  inflicts  for  the  breach  of  his  contract. 
Doubtless,  parties,  when  they  enter  into  contracts,  may  well  consid- 
er both  what  their  rights  and  what  their  liabilities  will  be  by  the  law, 
if  such  contracts  be  broken;  but  this  contemplation  of  consequences 
which  can  ensue  only  when  the  contract  is  broken,  is  no  part  of  the 
contract  itself.  The  law  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  contract  till  it 
be  broken;  how  then  can  it  be  said  to  form  a  part  of  the  contract 
itself? 

But  there  are  other  cogent  and  more  specific  reasons  against  con- 
sidering the  law  as  part  of  the  contract.  (1.)  If  the  law  be  part  of 
the  contract,  it  cannot  be  repealed  or  altered;  because,  in  such  case, 
the  repealing  or  modifying  law  itself  would  impair  the  obligation  of 
the  contract.  The  insolvent  law  of  New  York,  for  example,  au- 
thorises the  discharge  of  a  debtor  on  the  consent  of  two  thirds  of  his 
creditors.  A  subsequent  act  requires  the  consent  of  three  fourths; 
but  if  the  existing  law  be  part  of  the  contract,  this  latter  law  would 
be  void.  In  short,  whatever  is  part  of  the  contract  cannot  be  varied 
but  by  consent  of  the  parties;  therefore  the  argument  runs  in  absur- 
dnm;  for  it  proves  that  no  laws  for  enforcing  the  contract  or  giving 
remedies  upon  it,  or  any  way  affecting  it,  can  be  changed  or  modi- 


191 

fied  between  its  creation  and  its  end.  If  the  law  in  question  binds 
one  party  on  the  ground  of  assent  to  it,  it  binds  both,  and  binds 
them  until  they  agree  to  terminate  its  operation.  (2.)  If  the  party 
be  bound  by  an  implied  assent  to  the  law,  as  thereby  making  the  law 
a  part  of  the  contract,  how  would  it  be  if  the  parties  had  expressly 
dissented,  and  agreed  that  the  law  should  make  no  part  of  the  con- 
tract? Suppose  the  promise  to  have  been,  that  the  promiser  would 
pay  at  all  events,  and  not  take  advantage  of  the  statute;  still,  would 
not  the  statute  operate  on  the  whole,  on  this  particular  agreement 
and  all?  and  does  not  this  show  that  the  law  is  no  part  of  the  con- 
tract, but  something  above  it?  (3.)  If  the  law  of  the  place  be  part 
of  the  contract,  one  of  its  terms  and  conditions,  how  could  it  be  en- 
forced, as  we  all  know  it  might  be,  in  another  jurisdiction,  which 
should  have  no  regard  to  the  law  of  the  place  ?  Suppose  the  par- 
ties, after  the  contract,  to  remove  to  another  State,  do  they  carry 
the  law  with  them  as  part  of  their  contract?  We  all  know  they  do 
not.  Or  take  a  common  case;  some  States  have  laws  abolishing 
imprisonment  for  debt;  these  laws,  according  to  the  argument,  are 
all  parts  of  the  contract;  how  then  can  the  party,  when  sued  in 
another  State,  be  imprisoned  contrary  to  the  terms  of  his  contract? 
(4.)  The  argument  proves  too  much,  inasmuch  as  it  applies  as 
strongly  to  prior  as  to  subsequent  contracts.  It  is  founded  on  a 
supposed  assent  to  the  exercise  of  legislative  authority,  without 
considering  whether  that  exercise  be  legal  or  illegal.  But  it  is 
equally  fair  to  found  the  argument  on  an  implied  assent  to  the  po- 
tential exercise  of  that  authority.  The  implied  reference  to  the 
control  of  legislative  power,  is  as  reasonable  and  as  strong  when 
that  power  is  dormant,  as  while  it  is  in  exercise.  In  one  case,  the 
argument  is,  "the  law  existed,  you  knew  it,  and  acquiesced."  In 
the  other,  it  is,  "  the  power  to  pass  the  law  existed,  you  knew  it,  and 
took  your  chance."  There  is  as  clear  an  assent  in  the  one  instance 
as  in  the  other.  Indeed,  it  is  more  reasonable  and  more  sensible, 
to  imply  a  general  assent  to  all  the  laws  of  society,  present  and  to 
come,  from  the  fact  of  living  in  it,  than  it  is  to  imply  a  particular 
assent  to  a  particular  existing  enactment.  The  true  view  of  the  mat- 
ter is,  that  every  man  is  presumed  to  submit  to  all  power  which  may 
be  lawfully  exercised  over  him,  or  his  right,  and  no  one  should  be 
presumed  to  submit  to  illegal  acts  of  power,  whether  actual  or  con- 
tingent. (5.)  But  a  main  objection  to  this  argument  is,  that  it  would 
render  the  whole  constitutional  provision  idle  and  inoperative;  and 
no  explanatory  words,  if  such  words  had  been  added  in  the  consti- 
tution, could  have  prevented  this  consequence.  The  law,  it  is  said, 
is  part  of  the  contract;  it  cannot,  therefore,  impair  the  contract,  be- 
cause a  contract  cannot  impair  itself.  Now,  if  this  argument  be 
sound,  the  case  would  have  been  the  same,  whatever  words  the 
constitution  had  used.  If,  for  example,  it  had  declared  that  no  State 
should  pass  any  law  impairing  contracts  prospectively  or  retrospective- 
ly; or  law  impairing  contracts,  whether  existing  or  future;  or  what- 
ever terms  it  had  used  to  prohibit  precisely  such  a  law  as  is  now 
before  the  Court,  the  prohibition  would  be  totally  nugatory  if  the 
law  is  to  be  taken  as  part  of  the  contract;  and  the  result  would  be, 
that,  whatever  may  be  the  laws  which  the  States  by  this  clause  of 

^   OF  THE         -^\ 

Htjiuvbrsitt! 


192 

the  constitution  are  prohibited  from  passing,  yet,  if  they  in  fact  do  pass 
such  laws,  those  laws  are  valid,  and  bind  parties  by  a  supposed  assent. 

But  further,  this  idea,  if  well  founded,  would  enable  the  States 
to  defeat  the  whole  constitutional  provision  by  a  general  enactment. 
Suppose  a  State  should  declare,  by  law,  that  all  contracts  entered 
into  therein,  should  be  subject  to  such  laws  as  the  legislature,  at 
any  time,  or  from  time  to  time,  might  see  fit  to  pass.  This  law,  ac- 
cording to  the  argument,  would  enter  into  the  contract,  become  a 
part  of  it,  and  authorise  the  interference  of  the  legislative  power 
with  it,  for  any  and  all  purposes,  wholly  uncontrolled  by  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States. 

So  much  for  the  argument  that  the  law  is  a  part  of  the  contract. 
We  think  it  is  shown  to  be  not  so;  and,  if  it  were,  the  expected  con- 
sequence would  not  follow. 

The  inquiry,  then,  recurs,  whether  the  law  in  question  be  such  a 
law  as  the  legislature  of  New  York  had  authority  to  pass.  The 
question  is  general.  We  differ  from  our  learned  adversaries  on 
general  principles.  We  differ  as  to  the  main  scope  and  end  of  this 
constitutional  provision.  They  think  it  entirely  remedial:  we  regard 
it  as  preventive.  They  think  it  adopted  to  secure  redress  for  viola- 
ted private  rights:  to  us  it  seems  intended  to  guard  against  great 
public  mischiefs.  They  argue  it,  as  if  it  were  designed  as  an  in- 
demnity or  protection  for  injured  private  rights,  in  individual  cases 
of  meum  and  tuum:  we  look  upon  it  as  a  great  political  provision, 
favorable  to  the  commerce  and  credit  of  the  whole  country.  Cer- 
tainly we  do  not  deny  its  application  to  cases  of  violated  private 
right.  Such  cases  are  clearly  and  unquestionably  within  its  opera- 
tion. Still,  we  think  its  main  scope  to  be  general  and  political. 
And  this,  we  think,  is  proved  by  reference  to  the  history  of  the 
country,  and  to  the  great  objects  which  were  sought  to  be  obtained 
by  the  establishment  of  the  present  government.  Commerce,  credit, 
and  confidence,  were  the  principal  things  which  did  not  exist  under 
the  old  confederation,  and  which  it  was  a  main  object  of  the  present 
constitution  to  create  and  establish.  A  vicious  system  of  legislation, 
a  system  of  paper  money  and  tender  laws,  had  completely  paralysed 
industry,  threatened  to  beggar  every  man  of  property,  and  ultimately 
to  ruin  the  country.  The  relation  between  debtor  and  creditor,  always 
delicate,  and  always  dangerous  whenever  it  divides  society,  and  draws 
out  the  respective  parties  into  different  ranks  and  classes,  was  in  such 
a  condition  in  the  years  1787,  '88,  and  '89,  as  to  threaten  the  over- 
throw of  all  government;  and  a  revolution  was  menaced,  much  more 
critical  and  alarming  than  that  through  which  the  country  had  recently 
passed.  The  object  of  the  new  constitution  was  to  arrest  these  evils; 
to  awaken  industry  by  giving  security  to  property;  to  establish  confi- 
dence, credit,  and  commerce,  by  salutary  laws,  to  be  enforced  by  the 
power  of  the  whole  community.  The  revolutionary  war  was  over,  the 
country  had  peace,  but  little  domestic  tranquillity;  liberty,  but  few  of 
its  enjoyments,  and  none  of  its  security.  The  States  had  struggled  to- 
gether, but  their  union  was  imperfect.  They  had  freedom,  but  not  an 
established  course  of  justice.  The  constitution  was  therefore  framed, 
as  it  professes,  "to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  to  establish  justice,  to 
secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  and  to  insure  domestic  tranquillity." 


193 

It  is  not  pertinent  to  this  occasion,  to  advert  to  all  the  means  by 
which  these  desirable  ends  were  to  be  obtained.  Some  of  them, 
closely  connected  with  the  subject  now  under  consideration,  are 
obvious  and  prominent.  The  objects  were,  commerce,  credit,  and 
mutual  confidence  in  matters  of  property;  and  these  required,  among 
other  things,  a  uniform  standard  of  value,  or  medium  of  payments. 
One  of  the  first  powers  given  to  Congress,  therefore,  is  that  of  coin- 
ing money,  and  fixing  the  value  of  foreign  coins;  and  one  of  the 
first  restraints  imposed  on  the  States,  is  the  total  prohibition  to  coin 
money.  These  two  provisions  are  industriously  followed  up  and  com- 
pleted, by  denying  to  the  States  all  power  emitting  of  bills  of  credit, 
or  of  making  anything  but  gold  and  silver  a  tender  in  the  payment 
of  debts.  The  whole  control,  therefore,  over  the  standard  of  value, 
and  medium  of  payments,  is  vested  in  the  general  government. 
And  here  the  question  instantly  suggests  itself,  why  should  such 
pains  be  taken  to  confide  in  Congress  alone  this  exclusive  power  of 
fixing  on  a  standard  value,  and  of  prescribing  the  medium  in  which 
debts  shall  be  paid,  if  it  is,  after  all,  to  be  left  to  every  State  to  de- 
clare that  debts  may  be  discharged,  and  to  prescribe  how  they  may 
be  discharged,  without  any  payment  at  all  ?  Why  say  that  no  man 
shall  be  obliged  to  take  in  discharge  of  a  debt  paper  money  issued 
by  the  authority  of  a  State,  and  yet  say,  that  by  the  same  authority 
the  debt  may  be  discharged  without  any  payment  whatever? 

We  contend,  that  the  constitution  has  not  left  its  work  thus  unfin- 
ished. We  contend,  that,  taking  its  provisions  together,  it  is  appa- 
rent it  was  intended  to  provide  for  two  things,  intimately  connected 
with  each  other. 

1.  A  uniform  medium  for  the  payment  of  debts. 

2.  A  uniform  manner  of  discharging  debts  when  they  are  to  be 
discharged  without  payment. 

The  arrangement  of  the  grants  and  prohibition  contained  in  the 
constitution,  are  fit  to  be  regarded  on  this  occasion.  The  grant  to 
Congress,  and  the  prohibition  on  the  States,  though  they  are  cer- 
tainly to  be  construed  together,  are  not  contained  in  the  same 
clauses.  The  powers  granted  to  Congress  are  enumerated  one  after 
another  in  the  eighth  section;  the  principal  limitations  on  those 
powers,  in  the  ninth  section;  and  the  prohibitions  to  the  States,  in 
the  tenth  section.  Now,  in  order  to  understand  whether  any  par- 
ticular power  be  exclusively  vested  in  Congress,  it  is  necessary  to 
read  the  terms  of  the  grant,  together  with  the  terms  of  the  pro- 
hibition. Take  an  example  from  that  power  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking,  the  coinage  power.  Here  the  grant  to  Congress  is,  "  To 
coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  coins."  Now, 
the  correlative  prohibition  on  the  States,  though  found  in  another 
section,  is,  undoubtedly,  to  be  taken  in  immediate  connexion  with 
the  foregoing,  as  much  so  as  if  it  had  been  found  in  the  same  clause 
The  only  just  reading  of  these  provisions,  therefore,  is  this:  "  Con 
stress  shall  have  power  to  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of 
foreign  coin;  but  no  State  shall  coin  money,  emit  bills  of  credit,  or  make 
anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of  debts." 

These  provisions  respect  the  medium  of  payment,  or  standard  oi 
value,  and,  thus  collated,  their  joint   result  is  clear   and  decisive 
25  R 


194 

We  think  the  result  clear  also,  of  those  provisions  which  respect 
the  discharge  of  debts  without  payment.  Collated  in  like  manner, 
they  stand  thus:  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  establish  uniform  laws 
on  the  subject  of  bankruptcies  throughout  the  United  States ;  but  no  State 
shall  pass  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts."  This  colloca- 
tion cannot  be  objected  to  if  they  refer  to  the  same  subject  matter; 
and  that  they  do  refer  to  the  same  subject  matter,  we  have  the  au- 
thority of  this  Court  for  saying,  because  this  Court  solemnly  deter- 
mined, in  Sturges  vs.  Crouminshield,  that  this  prohibition  on  the  States 
did  apply  to  systems  of  bankruptcy.  It  must  be  now  taken,  therefore, 
that  State  bankrupt  laws  were  in  the  mind  of  the  Convention  when 
the  prohibition  was  adopted,  and,  therefore,  the  grant  to  Congress  on 
the  subject  of  bankrupt  laws,  and  the  prohibition  to  the  State  on  the 
same  subject,  are  properly  to  be  taken  and  read  together;  and  being 
thus  read  together,  is  not  the  intention  clear  to  take  away  from  the 
States  the  power  of  passing  bankrupt  laws,  since,  while  enacted  by 
them,  such  laws  would  not  be  uniform,  and  to  confer  the  power  exclu- 
sively on  Congress,  by  whom  uniform  laws  could  be  established? 

Suppose  the  order  of  arrangement  in  the  constitution  had  been 
otherwise  than  it  is,  and  that  the  prohibitions  to  the  States  had  pre- 
ceded the  grants  of  power  to  Congress,  the  two  powers,  when  col- 
lated, would  then  have  read  thus:  "  No  State  shall  pass  any  law  im- 
pairing the  obligation  of  contracts;  but  Congress  may  establish  uniform 
laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcies."  Could  any  man  have  doubted, 
in  that  case,  that  the  meaning  was,  that  the  States  should  not  pass 
laws  discharging  debts  without  payment,  but  that  Congress  might 
establish  uniform  bankrupt  acts?  and  yet  this  inversion  of  the  order 
of  the  clauses  does  not  alter  their  sense.  We  contend,  that  Con- 
gress alone  possesses  the  power  of  establishing  bankrupt  laws;  and 
although  we  are  aware,  that  in  Sturges  vs.  Crouminshield,  the  Court 
decided,  that  such  an  exclusive  power  could  not  be  inferred  from 
the  words  of  the  grant  in  the  seventh  section,  we  yet  would  respect- 
fully request  the  bench  to  reconsider  this  point.  We  think  it.  could 
not  have  been  intended  that  both  the  States  and  general  government 
should  exercise  this  power;  and,  therefore,  that  a  grant  to  one  im- 
plies the  prohibition  on  the  other.  But  not  to  press  a  topic  which 
the  Court  has  already  had  under  its  consideration,  we  contend,  that 
even  without  reading  the  clauses  of  the  constitution  in  the  connex- 
ion which  we  have  suggested,  and  which  is  believed  to  be  the  true 
one,  the  prohibition  in  the  tenth  section,  taken  by  itself,  does  forbid 
the  enactment  of  State  bankrupt  laws,  as  applied  to  future,  as  well 
as  present  debts.  We  argue  this  from  the  words  of  the  prohibition; 
from  the  association  they  are  found  in,  and  from  the  objects  intended. 

1.  The  words  are  general.  The  States  can  pass  no  law  impair- 
ing contracts;  that  is,  any  contract.  In  the  nature  of  things  a  law 
may  impair  a  future  contract,  and,  therefore,  such  contract  is  within 
the  protection  of  the  constitution.  The  words  being  general,  it  is 
for  the  other  side  to  show  a  limitation;  and  this,  it  is  submitted,  they 
have  wholly  failed  to  do,  unless  they  shall  have  established  the 
doctrine  that  the  law  itself  is  part  of  the  contract.  It  may  be  added, 
that  the  particular  expression  of  the  constitution  is  worth  regarding. 
The  thing  prohibited  is  called  a  law,  not  an  act;  a  law,  in  its  general 

t 


195 

acceptation,  is  a  rule  prescribed  for  future  conduct,  not  a  legislative 
interference  with  existing  rights.  The  framers  of  the  constitution 
would  hardly  have  given  the  appellation  of  law  to  violent  invasions 
of  individual  right,  or  individual  property,  by  acts  of  legislative 
power.  Although,  doubtless,  such  acts  fall  within  this  prohibition, 
yet  they  are  prohibited  also  by  general  principles,  and  by  the  con- 
stitutions of  the  States,  and,  therefore,  further  provision  against 
such  acts  was  not  so  necessary  as  against  other  mischiefs. 

2.  The  most  conclusive  argument,  perhaps,  arises  from  the  con 
nexion  in  which  the  clause  stands.  The  words  of  the  prohibition, 
so  far  as  it  applies  to  civil  rights,  or  rights  of  property,  are,  "  that 
no  State  shall  coin  money,  emit  bills  of  credit,  make  anything  but 
gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in  the  payment  of  debts,  or  pass  any 
law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts."  The  prohibition  of  at- 
tainders, and  ex  post  facto  laws,  refer  entirely  to  criminal  proceed- 
ings, and,  therefore,  should  be  considered  as  standing  by  themselves; 
but  the  other  parts  of  the  prohibition  are  connected  by  the  subject 
matter,  and  ought,  therefore,  to  be  construed  together.  Taking  the 
words  thus  together,  according  to  their  natural  connexion,  how  is 
i*  possible  to  give  a  more  limited  construction  to  the  term  "  con- 
tracts," in  the  last  branch  of  the  sentence,  than  to  the  word  "  debts," 
in  that  immediately  preceding?  Can  a  State  make  anything  but 
gold  and  silver  a  tender  in  payment  of  future  debts?  This  nobody 
pretends.  But  what  ground  is  there  for  a  distinction?  No  State 
shall  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  a  tender  in  the  payment  of 
debts,  nor  pass  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts. 
Now,  by  what  reasoning  is  it  made  out  that  the  debts  here  spoken 
of,  are  any  debts,  either  existing  or  future;  but  that  the  contracts 
spoken  of  are  subsisting  contracts  only  ?  Such  a  distinction  seems 
to  us  wholly  arbitrary.  We  see  no  ground  for  it.  Suppose  the 
article,  where  it  uses  the  word  debts,  had  used  the  word  contracts 
The  sense  would  have  been  the  same  then,  as  it  now  is;  but  the 
identity  of  terms  would  have  made  the  nature  of  the  distinction  now 
contended  for  somewhat  more  obvious.  Thus  altered,  the  clause 
would  read,  that  no  State  should  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver 
a  tender  in  discharge  of  contracts,  nor  pass  any  law  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts;  yet  the  first  of  these  expressions  would  have 
been  held  to  apply  to  all  contracts,  and  the  last  to  subsisting  con- 
tracts only.  This  shows  the  consequence  of  what  is  now  contended 
for  in  a  strong  light.  It  is  certain  that  the  substitution  of  the  word 
contracts,  for  debts,  would  not  alter  the  sense;  and  an  argument  that 
could  not  be  sustained  if  such  substitution  were  made,  cannot  be 
sustained  now.  We  maintain,  therefore,  that  if  tender  laws  may 
not  be  made  for  future  debts,  neither  can  bankrupt  laws  be  made 
for  future  contracts.  All  the  arguments  used  here  may  be  applied 
with  equal  force  to  tender  laws  for  future  debts.  It  may  be  said, 
for  instance,  that  when  it  speaks  of  debts,  the  constitution  means 
existing  debts,  and  not  mere  possibilities  of  future  debt;  that  the 
object  was  to  preserve  vested  rights;  and  that  if  a  man,  after  a  ten- 
der law  had  passed,  had  contracted  a  debt,  the  manner  in  which  that 
tender  law  authorised  that  debt  to  be  discharged,  became  part  of 
the  contract,  and  that  the  whole  debt,  or  whole  obligation  was  thus 


196 

qualified  by  the  pre-existing  law,  and  was  no  more  than  a  contract 
to  deliver  so  much  paper  money,  or  of  whatever  other  article  which 
might  be  made  a  tender,  as  the  original  bargain  expressed.  Argu- 
ments of  this  sort  will  not  be  found  wanting  in  favor  of  tender  laws, 
if  the  Court  yield  to  similar  arguments  in  favor  of  bankrupt  laws. 

These  several  prohibitions  of  the  constitution  stand  in  the  same 
paragraph;  they  have  the  same  purpose,  and  were  introduced  for 
the  same  object;  they  are  expressed  in  words  of  similar  import,  in 
grammar,  and  in  sense;  they  are  subject  to  the  same  construction, 
and,  we  think,  no  reason  has  yet  been  given  for  imposing  an  impor- 
tant restriction  on  one  part  of  them,  which  does  not  equally  show, 
that  the  same  restriction  might  be  imposed  also  on  the  other  part. 

We  have  already  endeavoured  to  maintain,  that  one  great  politi- 
cal object,  intended  by  the  constitution,  would  be  defeated,  if  this 
construction  were  allowed  to  prevail.  As  an  object  of  political 
regulation,  it  was  not  important  to  prevent  the  States  from  passing 
bankrupt  laws  applicable  to  present  debts,  while  the  power  was  left 
to  them  in  regard  to  future  debts;  nor  was  it  at  all  important,  in  a 
political  point  of  view,  to  prohibit  tender  laws  as  to  future  debts, 
while  it  was  yet  left  to  the  States  to  pass  laws  for  the  discharge  of 
such  debts,  which,  after  all,  are  little  different,  in  principle,  from 
tender  laws.  Look  at  the  law  before  the  Court  in  this  view.  It 
provides  that  if  the  debtor  will  surrender,  offer,  or  tender  to  trustees, 
ibr  the  benefit  of  his  creditors,  all  his  estate  and  effects,  he  shall  be 
discharged  from  all  his  debts.  If  it  had  authorised  a  tender  of  any- 
thing but  money  to  any  one  creditor,  though  it  were  of  a  value  equal 
to  the  debt,  and  thereupon  provided  for  a  discharge,  it  would  have 
been  clearly  invalid.  Yet  it  is  maintained  to  be  good,  merely  be- 
cause it  is  made  for  all  creditors,  and  seeks  a  discharge  from  all 
debts;  although  the  thing  tendered  may  not  be  equivalent  to  a  shil- 
ling in  the  pound  of  those  debts.  This  shows,  again,  very  clearly 
how  the  constitution  has  failed  of  its  purpose,  if,  having  in  terms 
prohibited  all  tender  laws,  and  taken  so  much  pains  to  establish  a 
uniform  medium  of  payment,  it  has  yet  left  the  States  the  power  of 
discharging  debts,  as  they  may  see  fit,  without  any  payment  at  all. 

To  recapitulate  what  has  been  said,  we  maintain;  first,  that  the  con- 
stitution, by  its  grants  to  Congress,  and  its  prohibitions  on  the  States, 
has  sought  to  establish  one  uniform  standard  of  value,  or  medium  of 
payment.  Second,  that,  by  like  means,  it  has  endeavoured  to  provide 
for  one  uniform  mode  of  discharging  debts,  when  they  are  to  be  dis- 
charged without  payment.  Third,  that  these  objects  are  connected, 
and  that  the  first  loses  much  of  its  importance,  if  the  last,  also,  be  not 
accomplished.  Fourth,  that  reading  the  grant  to  Congress  and  the 
prohibition  on  the  States  together,  the  inference  is  strong  that  the 
constitution  intended  to  confer  an  exclusive  power  to  pass  bankrupt 
laws  on  Congress.  Fifth,  that  the  prohibition,  in  the  tenth  section, 
reaches  to  all  contracts  existing  or  future,  in  the  same  way  as  the 
other  prohibition  in  the  same  section  extends  to  all  debts  existing  or 
future.  Sixthly,  and  that,  upon  any  other  construction,  one  great 
political  object  of  the  constitution  will  fail  of  its  accomplishment. 


■ 


REMARKS 


IN  THE  CONVENTION  OF  DELEGATES  CHOSEN  TO  REVISE  THE  CON- 
STITUTION OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  UPON  THE  RESOLUTION  RELA- 
TIVE TO  OATHS   OF  OFFICE.     1821. 


It  is  obvious  that  the  principal  alteration,  proposed  by  the  first  re- 
solution, is  the  omission  of  the  declaration  of  belief  in  the  Christian 
religion,  as  a  qualification  for  office,  in  the  cases  of  the  governor, 
lieutenant  governor,  counsellors,  and  members  of  the  legislature. 
I  shall  content  myself  on  this  occasion  with  stating,  shortly  and 
generally,  the  sentiments  of  the  select  committee,  as  I  understand 
them,  on  the  subject  of  this  resolution.  Two  questions  naturally 
present  themselves.  In  the  first  place;  have  the  people  a  right,  if 
in  their  judgment  the  security  of  their  government  and  its  due  ad- 
ministration demand  it,  to  require  a  declaration  of  belief  in  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  as  a  qualification  or  condition  of  office?  On  this 
question,  a  majority  of  the  committee  held  a  decided  opinion.  They 
thought  the  people  had  such  a  right.  By  the  fundamental  principle 
of  popular  and  elective  governments,  all  office  is  in  the  free  gift  of 
the  people.  They  may  grant,  or  they  may  withhold  it  at  pleasure; — 
and  if  it  be  for  them,  and  them  only,  to  decide  whether  they  will 
grant  office,  it  is  for  them  to  decide,  also,  on  what  terms,  and  with 
what  conditions,  they  will  grant  it.  Nothing  is  more  unfounded  than 
the  notion  that  any  man  has  a  right  to  an  office.  This  must  depend 
on  the  choice  of  others,  and  consequently  upon  the  opinions  of 
others,  in  relation  to  his  fitness  and  qualification  for  office.  No  man 
can  be  said  to  have  a  right  to  that,  which  others  may  withhold  from 
him  at  pleasure.  There  are  certain  rights,  no  doubt,  which  the 
whole  people,  or  the  government  as  representing  the  whole  people, 
owe  to  each  individual,  in  return  for  that  obedience  and  personal 
service,  and  proportionate  contributions  to  the  public  burdens,  which 
each  individual  owes  to  the  government.  These  rights  are  stated 
with  sufficient  accuracy,  in  the  tenth  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  in 
this  constitution.  "  Each  individual  in  society  has  a  right  to  be 
protected  by  it  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  life,  liberty,  and  property, 
according  to  the  standing  laws."  Here  is  no  right  of  office  enume- 
rated; no  right  of  governing  others,  or  of  bearing  rule  in  the  state. 
All  bestowment  of  office  remaining  in  the  discretion  of  the  people, 
they  have  of  course  a  right  to  regulate  it,  by  any  rules  which  they 
may  deem  expedient.     Hence  the  people,  by  their  constitution,  pre- 

K* 


198 

scribe   certain   qualifications  for  office,   respecting   age,   property, 
residence,  8cc.      But  if  office,  merely  as  such,  were  a  right,  which 
each  individual  under  the  social  compact  was  entitled  to  claim,  all 
these  qualifications  would  be  indefensible.     The  acknowledged  rights 
are  not  subject,  and  ought  not  to  be  subject,  to  any  such  limitation. 
The  right  of  being  protected,  in  life,  liberty,  and  estate,  is  due  to  all, 
and  cannot  be  justly  denied  to  any,  whatever  be  their  age,  property, 
or  residence  in  the  state.     These  qualifications,  then,  can  only  be 
made  requisite  as  qualifications  for  office,  on  the  ground  that  office 
is  not  what  any  man  can  demand,  as  matter  of  right,  but  rests  in  the 
confidence  and  good  will  of  those  who  are  to  bestow  it.     In  short,  it 
seems  to  me  too  plain  to  be  questioned,  that  the  right  of  office  is  a 
matter  of  discretion,  and  option,  and  can  never  be  claimed  by  any 
man,  on  the  ground  of  obligation.     It  would  seem  to  follow,  then, 
that  those  who  confer  office  may  annex  any  such  conditions  to  it  as 
they  think  proper.     If  they  prefer  one  man  to  another,  they  may  act 
on  that  preference.     If  they  regard  certain  personal  qualifications, 
they  may  act  accordingly,  and  ground  of  complaint  is  given  to  nobody. 
Between  two  candidates,  otherwise  equally  qualified,  the  people  at 
an  election,  may  decide  in  favor  of  one  because  he  is  a  Christian,  and 
against  the  other  because  he  is  not.     They  may  repeat  this  prefer- 
ence at  the  next  election,  on  the  same  ground,  and  may  continue  it 
from  year  to  year.     Now,  if  the  people  may,  without  injustice,  act 
upon  this  preference,  and  from  a  sole  regard  to  this  qualification,  and 
refuse  in  any  instance  to  depart  from  it,  they  have  an  equally  clear 
right  to  prescribe  this  qualification,  beforehand,  as  a  rule  for  their 
future  government.     If  they  may  do  it,  they  may  agree  to  do  it.     If 
they  deem  it  necessary,  they  may  so  say,  beforehand.     If  the  public 
will  may  require  this  qualification,  at  every  election  as  it  occurs, 
the  public  will  may  declare  itself  beforehand;  and  make  such  quali- 
fication a  standing  requisite.     That  cannot  be  an  unjust  rule,  the 
compliance  with  which,  in  every  case,  would  be  right.     This  qualifi- 
cation has  nothing  to  do  with  any  man's  conscience.     If  he  dislike  the 
condition,  he  may  decline  the  office;  in  like  manner  as  if  he  dislike 
the  salary,  the  rank,  or  anything  else  which  the  law  attaches  to  it. 
However  clear  the  right  may  be,  (and  I  can  hardly  suppose  any  gen- 
tleman will  dispute  it,)  the  expediency  of  retaining  the  declaration  is  a 
more  difficult  question.     It  is  said  not  to  be  necessary,  because,  in 
this  commonwealth,  ninety -nine  out  of  every  hundred  of  the  inhabi- 
tants profess  to  believe  in  the  Christian  religion.     It  is  sufficiently 
certain,  therefore,  that  persons  of  this  description,  and  none  others, 
will  ordinarily  be  chosen  to  places  of  public  trust.    There  is  as  much 
security,  it  is  said,  on  this  subject,  as  the  necessity  of  the  case  re- 
quires.    And  as  there  is  a  sort  of  opprobium — a  marking  out,  for 
observation  and  censorious  remark,  a  single  individual,  or  a  very  few 
individuals,  who  may  not  be  able  to  make  the  declaration, — it  is  an  act, 
if  not  of  injustice,  yet  of  unkindness,  and  of  unnecessary  rigor,  to 
call  on  such  individuals  to  make  the  declaration.     There  is  also 
another  class  of  objections,  which  have  been  stated.     It  has  been  said, 
that  there  are  many  very  devout  and  serious  persons — persons  who 
esteem  the  Christian  religion  to  be  above  all  price — to  whom,  never- 
theless, the  terms  of  this  declaration  seem  somewhat  too  strong  and 


199 

intense.  They  seem,  to  these  persons,  to  require  the  declaration  of 
that  faith  which  is  deemed  essential  to  personal  salvation;  and  there- 
fore not  at  all  fit  to  be  adopted,  by  those  who  profess  a  belief  in 
Christianity  merely,  in  a  more  popular  and  general  sense.  It 
certainly  appears  to  me,  that  this  is  a  mistaken  interpretation  of  the 
terms;  that  they  imply  only  a  general  assent  to  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  revelation,  and,  at  most,  to  the  supernatural  occurrences 
which  establish  its  authenticity.  There  may,  however,  and  there 
appears  to  be,  conscience  in  this  objection;  and  all  conscience  ought 
to  be  respected.  I  was  not  aware,  before  I  attended  the  discussions 
in  the  committee,  of  the  extent  to  which  this  objection  prevailed. 
There  is  one  other  consideration  to  which  I  will  allude,  although  it 
was  not  urged  in  committee.  It  is  this.  This  qualificaton  is  made 
applicable  only  to  the  executive  and  the  members  of  the  legislature. — 
It  would  not  be  easy,  perhaps,  to  say  why  it  should  not  be  extended 
to  the  judiciary,  if  it  were  thought  necessary  for  any  office.  There 
can  be  no  office,  in  which  the  sense  of  religious  responsibility  is 
more  necessary,  than  in  that  of  a  judge;  especially  of  those  judges 
who  pass,  in  the  last  resort,  on  the  lives,  liberty  and  property  of 
every  man.  There  may  be  among  legislators,  strong  passions  and 
bad  passions.  There  may  be  party  heats  and  personal  bitterness. 
But  legislation  is  in  its  nature  general  :  laws  usually  affect  the 
whole  society;  and  if  mischievous  or  unjust,  the  whole  society  is 
alarmed,  and  seeks  their  repeal.  The  judiciary  power,  on  the  other 
hand,  acts  directly  on  individuals.  The  injured  may  suffer,  without 
sympathy  or  the  hope  of  redress.  The  last  hope  of  the  innocent, 
under  accusation,  and  in  distress,  is  in  the  integrity  of  his  judges. 
If  this  fail,  all  fails;  and  there  is  no  remedy,  on  this  side  the  bar  of 
Heaven. — Of  all  places,  therefore,  there  is  none  which  so  impera- 
tively demands,  that  he  who  occupies  it  should  be  under  the  fear  of 
God,  and  above  all  other  fear,  as  the  situation  of  a  judge. — For  these 
reasons,  perhaps,  it  might  be  thought,  that  the  constitution  has  not 
gone  far  enough,  if  the  provisions  already  in  it  were  deemed  neces- 
sary to  the  public  security.  I  believe  I  have  stated  the  substance 
of  the  reasons  which  appeared  to  have  weight  with  the  committee. 
For  my  own  part,  finding  this  declaration  in  the  constitution,  and 
hearing  of  no  practical  evil  resulting  from  it,  I  should  have  been 
willing  to  retain  it,  unless  considerable  objection  had  been  express- 
ed to  it.  If  others  were  satisfied  with  it,  I  should  be.  I  do  not  con- 
sider it,  however,  essential  to  retain  it,  as  there  is  another  part  of  the 
constitution  which  recognises,  in  the  fullest  manner,  the  benefits 
which  civil  society  derives  from  those  Christian  institutions  which 
cherish  piety,  morality  and  religion.  I  am  conscious,  that  we  should 
not  strike  out  of  the  constitution  all  recognition  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. I  am  desirous,  in  so  solemn  a  transaction  as  the  establish- 
ment of  a  constitution,  that  we  should  keep  in  it  an  expression  of 
our  respect  and  attachment  to  Christianity; — not,  indeed,  to  any  of 
its  peculiar  forms,  but  to  its  general  principles. 


REMARKS 


IN  THE  CONVENTION,  UPON  THE  RESOLUTION  TO  DIVIDE  THE 
COMMONWEALTH  INTO  DISTRICTS  FOR  THE  CHOICE  OF  SENA- 
TORS ACCORDING  TO  POPULATION. 


I  know  not,  sir,  whether  it  be  probable  that  any  opinions  or  votes 
of  mine  are  ever  likely  to  be  of  more  permanent  importance,  than 
those  which  I  may  give  in  the  discharge  of  my  duties  in  this  body. 
And  of  the  questions  which  may  arise  here,  I  anticipate  no  one  of 
greater  consequence  than  the  present.  I  ask  leave,  therefore,  to 
submit  a  few  remarks  to  the  consideration  of  the  committee. 

The  subject  before  us,  is  the  manner  of  constituting  the  legisla- 
tive department  of  government.  We  have  already  decided,  that  the 
legislative  power  shall  exist  as  it  has  heretofore  existed,  in  two 
separate  and  distinct  branches,  a  Senate  and  a  House  of  Represen- 
tatives. We  propose  also,  at  least  I  have  heard  no  intimation  of 
a  contrary  opinion,  that  these  branches  shall,  in  form,  possess  a  neg- 
ative on  each  other.  And  I  presume  I  may  take  it  for  granted,  that 
the  members  of  both  these  houses  are  to  be  chosen  annually.  The 
immediate  question  now  under  discussion,  is,  In  what  manner  shall 
the  senators  be  elected  ?  They  are  to  be  chosen  in  districts  ;  but 
shall  they  be  chosen,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  in 
each  district,  or  in  proportion  to  the  taxable  property  of  each  district, 
or,  in  other  words,  in  proportion  to  the  part  which  each  district  bears  in 
the  public  burdens  of  the  state.  The  latter  is  the  existing  provision 
of  the  constitution;  and  to  this  I  give  my  support.  The  proposition 
of  the  honorable  member  from  Roxbury,  (Mr.  Dearborn,)  proposes 
to  divide  the  state  into  certain  legislative  districts,  and  to  choose  a 
given  number  of  senators,  and  a  given  number  of  representatives, 
in  each  district,  in  proportion  to  population.  This  I  understand.  It 
is  a  simple  and  plain  system.  The  honorable  member  from  Pitts- 
field,  and  the  honorable  member  from  Worcester  support  the  first 
part  of  this  proposition — that  is  to  say,  that  part  which  provides  for 
the  choice  of  senators,  according  to  population — without  explaining 
entirely  their  views,  as  to  the  latter  part,  relative  to  the  choice  of 
representatives.  They  insist  that  the  questions  are  distinct,  and  ca- 
pable of  a  separate  consideration  and  decision.  I  confess  myself, 
sir,  unable  to  view  the  subject  in  that  light.  It  seems  to  me,  there 
is  an  essential  propriety  in  considering  the  questions  together;  and 
in  forming  our  opinions  on  the  constitution  of  one,  with  reference 


201 

to  that  of  the  other.  The  Legislature  is  one  great  machine  of  gov- 
ernment, not  two  machines;  the  two  Houses  are  its  parts,  and  its  utili- 
ty will,  as  it  seems  to  me,  depend  not  merely  on  the  materials  of  these 
parts,  or  their  separate  construction,  but  on  their  accommodation,  also, 
and  adaption  to  each  other.  Their  balanced  and  regulated  movement, 
when  united,  is  that  which  is  expected  to  insure  safety  to  the  state; 
and  who  can  give  any  opinion  on  this,  without  first  seeing  the  con- 
struction of  both,  and  considering  how  they  are  formed  and  arranged 
with  respect  to  their  mutual  relation. — I  cannot  imagine,  therefore, 
how  the  member  from  Worcester  should  think  it  uncandid  to  inquire 
of  him,  since  he  supports  this  mode  of  choosing  senators,  what  mode 
he  proposes  for  the  choice  of  representatives. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  constitution,  as  it  now  stands,  gives  more 
than  an  equal  and  proper  number  of  senators  to  the  county  of  Suf- 
folk. I  hope  I  may  be  thought  to  contend  for  the  general  principle, 
without  being  influenced  by  any  regard  to  its  local  application.  I 
do  not  inquire  whether  the  senators,  whom  this  principle  brings  into 
the  government,  will  come  from  the  county  of  Suffolk,  or  from  the 
Housatonic  river,  or  the  extremity  of  Cape  Cod.  I  wish  to  look 
only  to  the  principle;  and  as  I  believe  that  to  be  sound  and  salutary, 
I  give  my  vote  in  favor  of  maintaining  it. 

In  my  opinion,  sir,  there  are  two  questions  before  the  committee. 
The  first  is,  shall  the  legislative  department  be  constructed  with 
any  other  check  than  such  as  arises  simply  from  dividing  the  mem- 
bers of  this  department  into  two  houses  ?  The  second  is,  if  such 
other  and  further  check  ought  to  exist,  in  what  manner  shall  it  be 
created  ? 

If  the  two  houses  are  to  be  chosen  in  the  manner  proposed  by 
the  resolutions  of  the  member  from  Roxbury,  there  is  obviously  no 
other  check  or  control  than  a  division  into  separate  chambers.  The 
members  of  both  houses  are  to  be  chosen  at  the  same  time,  by  the 
same  electors,  in  the  same  districts,  and  for  the  same  term  of  office. 
They  will  of  course  all  be  actuated  by  the  same  feelings  and  inter- 
ests. Whatever  motives  may  at  the  moment  exist  to  elect  particu- 
lar members  of  one  house,  will  operate,  equally,  on  the  choice  of 
members  of  the  other.  There  is  so  little  of  real  utility  in  this  mode, 
that,  if  nothing  more  be  done,  it  would  be  more  expedient  to  choose 
all  the  members  of  the  legislature,  without  distinction,  simply  as 
members  of  the  legislature,  and  to  make  the  division  into  two  houses, 
either  by  lot,  or  otherwise,  after  these  members  thus  chosen  should 
have  come  up  to  the  capital. 

I  understand  the  reason  of  checks  and  balances,  in  the  legislative 
power,  to  arise  from  the  truth,  that,  in  representative  governments 
that  department  is  the  leading  and  predominating  power;  and  if  its 
will  may  be  at  any  time  suddenly  and  hastily  expressed,  there  is 
great  danger  that  it  may  overthrow  all  other  powers. — Legislative 
bodies  naturally  feel  strong,  because  they  are  numerous,  and  be- 
cause they  consider  themselves  as  the  immediate  representatives  of 
the  people.  They  depend  on  public  opinion  to  sustain  their  meas- 
ures, and  they  undoubtedly  possess  great  means  of  influencing  pub- 
lic opinion.  With  all  the  guards  which  can  be  raised  by  constitu- 
tional provisions,  we  are  not  likely  to  be  too  well  secured  against 
26 


202 

cases  of  improper,  or  hasty,  or  intemperate  legislation.  It  may  be 
observed,  also,  that  the  executive  power,  so  uniformly  the  object 
of  jealousy  to  republics,  has  become,  in  the  states  of  this  union, 
deprived  of  the  greatest  part  both  of  its  importance  and  its  splen- 
dor, by  the  establishment  of  the  general  government.  While  the 
states  possessed  the  power  of  making  war  and  peace,  and  maintained 
military  forces,  by  their  own  authority,  the  power  of  the  state  exec- 
utives was  very  considerable,  and  respectable.  It  might  then  even 
be  an  object,  in  some  cases,  of  a  just  and  warrantable  jealousy.  But 
a  great  change  has  been  wrought.  The  care  of  foreign  relations, 
the  maintenance  of  armies  and  navies,  and  their  command  and  con- 
trol, have  devolved  on  another  government.  Even  the  power  of 
appointment,  so  exclusively,  one  would  think,  an  executive  power, 
is,  in  very  many  of  the  states,  held  or  controlled  by  the  legislature; 
that  department  either  making  the  principal  appointments,  itself,  or 
else  surrounding  the  chief  executive  magistrate  with  a  council,  of 
its  own  election,  possessing  a  negative  upon  his  nominations. 

Nor  has  it  been  found  easy,  nor  in  all  cases  possible,  to  preserve 
the  judicial  department  from  the  progress  of  legislative  encroach- 
ment. Indeed,  in  some  of  the  states,  all  judges  are  appointed  by  the 
legislature;  in  others,  although  appointed  by  the  executive,  they  are 
removable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature.  In  all,  the  provision 
for  their  maintenance  is  necessarily  to  be  made  by  the  legislature. 
As  if  Montesquieu  had  never  demonstrated  the  necessity  of  sepa- 
rating the  departments  of  governments  ;  as  if  Mr.  Adams  had  not 
done  the  same  thing,  with  equal  ability,  and  more  clearness,  in  his 
defence  of  the  American  constitution;  as  if  the  sentiments  of  Mr. 
Hamilton  and  Mr.  Madison,  were  already  forgotten:  we  see,  all 
around  us,  a  tendency  to  extend  the  legislative  power  over  the  prop- 
er sphere  of  the  other  departments.  And  as  the  legislature,  from 
the  very  nature  of  things,  is  the  most  powerful  department,  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  provide,  in  the  mode  of  forming  it,  some  check, 
which  shall  insure  deliberation,  and  caution,  in  its  measures.  If 
all  legislative  power  rested  in  one  house,  it  is  very  problematical, 
whether  any  proper  independence  could  be  given,  either  to  the  ex- 
ecutive or  the  judiciary.  Experience  does  not  speak  encouragingly, 
on  that  point.  If  we  look  through  the  several  constitutions  of  the 
states,  we  shall  perceive  that  generally  the  departments  are  most 
distinct,  and  independent,  where  the  legislature  is  composed  of  two 
houses,  with  equal  authority,  and  mutual  checks.  If  all  legislative 
power  be  in  one  popular  body,  all  other  power,  sooner  or  later,  will 
be  there  also. 

I  wish,  now,  sir,  to  correct  a  most  important  mistake  in  the  manner 
in  which  this  question  has  been  stated.  It  has  been  said,  that  we 
propose  to  give  to  property,  merely  as  such,  a  control  over  the  peo- 
ple, numerically  considered.  But  this  I  take  not  to  be  at  all  the  true 
nature  of  the  proposition.  The  Senate  is  not  to  be  a  check  on  the 
people,  but  on  the  House  of  Representatives.  It  is  the  case  of  an  au- 
thority, given  to  one  agent,  to  check  or  control  the  acts  of  another. 
The  people,  having  conferred  on  the  House  of  Representatives 
powers  which  are  great,  and,  from  their  nature,  liable  to  abuse,  re- 
quire, for  their  own  security,  another  house,  which  shall  possess  an 


203 

effectual  negative  on  the  first.  This  does  not  limit  the  power  of  the 
people;  but  only  the  authority  of  their  agents.  It  is  not  a  restraint 
on  their  rights,  but  a  restraint  on  that  power  which  they  have  delega- 
ted. It  limits  the  authority  of  agents,  in  making  laws  to  bind  their 
principals.  And  if  it  be  wise  to  give  one  agent  the  power  of  check- 
ing or  controlling  another,  it  is  equally  wise,  most  manifestly,  that 
there  should  be  some  difference  of  character,  sentiment,  feeling,  or 
origin,  in  that  agent  who  is  to  possess  this  control.  Otherwise,  it 
is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  control  will  ever  be  exercised.  To  re- 
quire the  consent  of  two  agents  to  the  validity  of  an  act,  and  yet  to 
appoint  agents  so  similar,  in  all  respects,  as  to  create  a  moral  certainty 
that  what  one  does  the  other  will  do  also,  would  be  inconsistent,  and 
nugatory. — There  can  be  no  effectual  control,  without  some  difference 
of  origin,  or  character,  or  interest,  or  feeling,  or  sentiment.  And  the 
great  question  in  this  country  has  been,  where  to  find,  or  how  to 
create  this  difference,  in  governments  entirely  elective  and  popular? 
Various  modes  have  been  attempted,  in  various  states.  In  some,  a 
difference  of  qualification  has  been  required,  in  the  persons  to  be 
elected. — This  obviously  produces  little  or  no  effect.  All  property 
qualification,  even  the  highest,  is  so  low  as  to  produce  no  exclusion, 
to  any  extent,  in  any  of  the  states.  A  difference  of  age,  in  the 
persons  elected,  is  sometimes  required;  but  this  is  found  to  be  equally 
unimportant.  It  has  not  happened,  neither,  that  any  consideration 
of  the  relative  rank  of  the  members  of  the  two  houses,  has  had  much 
effect  on  the  character  of  their  constituent  members.  Both  in  the 
state  governments,  and  in  the  United  States  government,  we  daily 
see  persons  elected  into  the  House  of  Representatives  who  have  been 
members  of  the  Senate.  Public  opinion  does  not  attach  so  much 
weight  and  importance  to  the  distinction,  as  to  lead  individuals  great- 
ly to  regard  it.  In  some  of  the  states,  a  different  sort  of  qualifica- 
tion in  the  electors,  is  required,  for  the  two  houses;  and  this  is 
probably  the  most  proper  and  efficient  check.  But  such  has  not  been 
the  provision  in  this  commonwealth,  and  there  are  strong  objections 
to  introducing  it.  In  other  cases,  again,  there  is  a  double  election 
for  senators;  electors  being  first  chosen,  who  elect  senators.  Such  is 
the  constitution  of  Maryland,  in  which  the  senators  are  elected  for 
five  years,  by  electors  appointed  in  equal  numbers  by  the  counties; 
a  mode  of  election  not  unlike  that  of  choosing  representatives  in 
Parliament  for  the  boroughs  of  Scotland.  In  this  state,  the  quali- 
fication of  the  voters  is  the  same,  and  there  is  no  essential  difference 
in  that  of  the  persons  chosen. — But,  in  apportioning  the  senate  to 
the  different  districts  of  the  state,  the  present  constitution  assigns  to 
each  district  a  number  proportioned  to  its  public  taxes.  Whether 
this  be  the  best  mode  of  producing  a  difference  in  the  construction 
of  the  two  houses,  is  not  now  the  question;  but  the  question  is, 
whether  this  be  better  than  no  mode. 

The  gentleman  from  Roxbury  called  for  authority  on  this  subject. 
He  asked,  what  writer  of  reputation  had  approved  the  principle  for 
which  we  contend.  I  should  hope,  sir,  that  even  if  this  call  could 
not  be  answered,  it  would  not  necessarily  follow,  that  the  principle 
should  be  expunged.     Governments  are  instituted  for  practical  ben- 


204 

efit,  not  for  subjects  of  speculative  reasoning,  merely.  The  best 
authority,  for  the  support  of  a  particular  principle  or  provision  in 
government,  is  experience;  and,  of  all  experience,  our  own,  if  it  have 
been  long  enough  to  give  the  principle  a  fair  trial,  should  be  most 
decisive.  This  provision  has  existed  for  forty  years,  and  while  so 
many  gentlemen  contend  that  it  is  wrong  in  theory,  no  one  has  shown 
that  it  has  been  either  injurious  or  inconvenient  in  practice.  No  one 
pretends,  that  it  has  caused  a  bad  law  to  be  enacted,  or  a  good  one 
to  be  rejected.  To  call  on  us,  then,  to  strike  out  this  provision, 
because  we  should  be  able  to  find  no  authority  for  it  in  any  book  on 
government,  would  seem  to  be  like  requiring  a  mechanic  to  abandon 
the  use  of  an  implement,  which  had  always  answered  all  the  purpo- 
ses designed  by  it,  because  he  could  find  no  model  of  it  in  the  patent 
office. 

But,  sir,  I  take  the  principle  to  be  well  established,  by  writers  of 
the  greatest  authority.  In  the  first  place,  those  who  have  treated 
of  natural  law,  have  maintained,  as  a  principle  of  that  law,  that  as  far 
as  the  object  of  society  is  the  protection  of  something  in  which  the 
members  possess  unequal  shares,  it  is  just,  that  the  weight  of  each 
person  in  the  common  councils  should  bear  a  relation  and  propor- 
tion to  his  interest.  Such  is  the  sentiment  of  Grotius,  and  he  refers, 
in  support  of  it,  to  several  institutions  among  the  ancient  states. 

Those  authors  who  have  written  more  particularly  on  the  subject 
of  political  institutions,  have,  many  of  them,  maintained  similar  senti- 
ments.— Not,  indeed,  that  every  man's  power  should  be  in  exact 
proportion  to  his  property,  but  that,  in  a  general  sense,  and  in  a  gene- 
ral form,  property,  as  such,  should  have  its  weight  and  influence  in 
political  arrangement.  Montesquieu  speaks  with  approbation  of  the 
early  Roman  regulation,  made  by  Servius  Tullius,  by  which  the  peo- 
ple were  distributed  into  classes,  according  to  their  property,  and  the 
public  burdens  apportioned  to  each  individual  according  to  the 
degree  of  power  which  he  possessed  in  the  government.  By  which 
regulation,  he  observes,  some  bore  with  the  greatness  of  their  tax 
because  of  their  proportionable  participation  in  power  and  credit; 
others  consoled  themselves  for  the  smallness  of  their  power  and 
credit,  by  the  smallness  of  their  tax.  One  of  the  most  ingenious  of 
political  writers,  is  Mr.  Harrington;  an  author  not  now  read  so  much 
as  he  deserves.  It  is  his  leading  object,  in  his  Oceana,  to  prove, 
that  power  naturally  and  necessarily  follows  property. — He  maintains 
that  a  government,  founded  on  property,  is  legitimately  founded;  and 
that  a  government  founded  on  the  disregard  of  property,  is  founded 
in  injustice,  and  can  only  be  maintained  by  military  force.  "  If  one 
man,"  says  he,  "  be  sole  landlord,  like  the  grand  signior,  his  empire  is 
absolute.  If  a  few  possess  the  land,  this  makes  the  Gothic  or  Feu- 
dal constitution.  If  the  whole  people  be  landlords,  then  is  it  a  com- 
monwealth." "  It  is  strange,"  says  Mr.  Pope,  in  one  of  his  recorded 
conversations,  "  that  Harrington  should  be  the  first  man  to  find  out 
so  evident  and  demonstrable  a  truth  as  that,  of  property  being  the 
true  basis  and  measure  of  power."  In  truth,  he  was  not  the  first. 
The  idea  is  as  old  as  political  science  itself.  It  may  be  found  in 
Aristotle,  Lord  Bacon,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  and  other  writers.     Har- 


205 

rington  seems,  however,  to  be  the  first  writer  who  has  illustrated  and 
expanded  the  principle,  and  given  to  it  the  effect  and  prominence 
which  justly  belong  to  it. 

To  this  sentiment,  sir,  I  entirely  agree.  It  seems  to  me  to  be 
plain,  that  in  the  absence  of  military  force,  political  power  naturally 
and  necessarily  goes  into  the  hands  which  hold  the  property.  In  my 
judgment,  therefore,  a  republican  form  of  government  rests,  not  more 
on  political  constitutions,  than  on  those  laws  which  regulate  the 
descent  and  transmission  of  property. — Governments  like  ours  could 
not  have  been  maintained,  where  property  was  holden  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  feudal  system;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  could 
the  feudal  constitution  possibly  exist  with  us.  Our  New  England 
ancestors  brought  hither  no  great  capitals,  from  Europe;  and  if  they 
had,  there  was  nothing  productive  in  which  they  could  have  been 
invested.  They  left  behind  them  the  whole  feudal  system  of  the 
other  continent.  They  broke  away,  at  once,  from  that  system  of 
military  service  established  in  the  dark  ages,  and  which  continues, 
down  even  to  the  present  time,  more  or  less  to  affect  the  condition 
of  property  all  over  Europe.  They  came  to  a  new  country.  There 
were,  as  yet,  no  lands  yielding  rent,  and  no  tenants  rendering  ser- 
vice. The  whole  soil  was  unreclaimed  from  barbarism.  They 
were  themselves,  either  from  their  original  condition  or  from  the 
necessity  of  their  common  interest,  nearly  on  a  general  level,  in 
respect  to  property.  Their  situation  demanded  a  parcelling  out  and 
division  of  the  lands;  and  it  may  be  fairly  said,  that  this  necessary 
act  fixed  the  future  frame  and  form  of  their  government.  The  character 
of  their  political  institutions  was  determined  by  the  fundamental  laws 
respecting  property.  The  laws  rendered  estates  divisible,  among 
sons,  and  daughters.  The  right  of  primogeniture,  at  first  limited, 
and  curtailed,  was  afterwards  abolished.  The  property  was  all  free- 
hold. The  entailment  of  estates,  long  trusts,  and  the  other  process- 
ses  for  fettering  and  tying  up  inheritances,  were  not  applicable  to 
the  condition  of  society,  and  seldom  made  use  of.  On  the  contrary, 
alienation  of  the  land  was  every  way  facilitated,  even  to  the 
subjecting  of  it  to  every  species  of  debt.  The  establishment  of 
public  registries,  and  the  simplicity  of  our  forms  of  conveyance,  have 
greatly  facilitated  the  change  of  real  estate  from  one  proprietor  to 
another.  The  consequence  of  all  these  causes  has  been,  a  great 
subdivision  of  the  soil,  and  a  great  equality  of  condition;  the  true 
basis,  most  certainly,  of  a  popular  government. — "If  the  people," 
says  Harrington,  "hold  three  parts  in  four  of  the  territory,  it  is  plain 
there  can  neither  be  any  single  person  nor  nobility  able  to  dispute 
the  government  with  them;  in  this  case,  therefore,  except  force  be 
interposed,  they  govern  themselves. 

The  history  of  other  nations  may  teach  us,  how  favorable  to  public 
liberty  is  the  division  of  the  soil  into  small  freeholds;  and  a  system 
of  laws,  of  which  the  tendency  is,  without  violence  or  injustice,  to 
produce  and  to  preserve  a  degree  of  equality  of  property.  It  has 
been  estimated,  if  I  mistake  not,  that  about  the  time  of  Henry  the 
VII,  four  fifths  of  the  land,  in  England,  was  holden  by  the  great 
barons,  and  ecclesiastics.  The  effects  of  a  growing  commerce  soon 
afterwards  began  to  break  in  on  this  state  of  things,  and  before  the 

s 


206 

revolution,  in  1688,  avast  change  had  been  wrought.  It  is  probable, 
perhaps,  that  for  the  last  half  century,  the  process  of  subdivision,  in 
England,  has  been  retarded,  if  not  reversed;  that  the  great  weight 
of  taxation  has  compelled  many  of  the  lesser  freeholders  to  dispose 
of  their  estates,  and  to  seek  employment  in  the  army  and  navy,  in 
the  professions  of  civil  life,  in  commerce,  or  in  the  colonies.  The 
effect  of  this  on  the  British  constitution  cannot  but  be  most  unfavor- 
able. A  few  large  estates  grow  larger;  but  the  number  of  those 
who  have  no  estates  also  increases;  and  there  may  be  danger,  lest 
the  inequality  of  property  become  so  great,  that  those  who  possess 
it  may  be  dispossessed  by  force.  In  other  words,  that  the  govern- 
ment may  be  overturned. 

A  most  interesting  experiment  of  the  effect  of  a  subdivision  of 
property,  on  government,  is  now  making  in  France.  It  is  understood, 
that  the  law  regulating  the  transmission  of  property,  in  that  country, 
now  divides  it,  real  and  personal,  among  all  the  children,  equally, 
both  sons  and  daughters;  and  that  there  is,  also,  a  very  great 
restraint  on  the  power  of  making  dispositions  of  property  by  will. 
It  has  been  supposed,  that  the  effect  of  this  might  probably  be,  in 
time,  to  break  up  the  soil  into  such  small  subdivisions,  that  the  pro- 
prietors would  be  too  poor  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  executive 
power.  I  think  far  otherwise.  What  is  lost  in  individual  wealth, 
will  be  more  than  gained  in  numbers,  in  intelligence,  and  in  a  sym- 
pathy of  sentiment.  If,  indeed,  only  one  or  a  few  landholders  were 
to  resist  the  crown,  like  the  barons  of  England,  they  must  of  course 
be  great  and  powerful  landholders,  with  multitudes  of  retainers,  to 
promise  success.  But  if  the  proprietors  of  a  given  extent  of  terri- 
tory are  summoned  to  resistance,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
such  resistance  would  be  less  forcible,  or  less  successful,  because 
the  number  of  such  proprietors  should  be  great.  Each  would  per- 
ceive his  own  importance,  and  his  own  interest,  and  would  feel  that 
natural  elevation  of  character  which  the  consciousness  of  property 
inspires.  A  common  sentiment  would  unite  all,  and  numbers  would 
not  only  add  strength,  but  excite  enthusiasm.  It  is  true,  that  France 
possesses  a  vast  military  force,  under  the  direction  of  an  hereditary 
executive  government;  and  military  power,  it  is  possible,  may  over- 
throw any  government.  It  is  in  vain,  however,  in  this  period  of  the 
world,  to  look  for  security  against  military  power,  to  the  arm  of  the 
great  landholders.  That  notion  is  derived  from  a  state  of  things 
long  since  past;  a  state  in  which  a  feudal  baron,  with  his  retainers, 
might  stand  against  the  sovereign,  who  was  himself  but  the  greatest 
baron,  and  his  retainers.  But  at  present,  what  could  the  richest 
landholder  do,  against  one  regiment  of  disciplined  troops?  Other 
securities,  therefore,  against  the  prevalence  of  military  power  must 
be  provided.  Happily  for  us,  we  are  not  so  situated  as  that  any 
purpose  of  national  defence  requires,  ordinarily  and  constantly,  such 
a  military  force  as  might  seriously  endanger  our  liberties. 

In  respect,  however,  sir,  to  the  recent  law  of  succession  in  France, 
to  which  I  have  alluded,  I  would,  presumptuously  perhaps,  hazard  a 
conjecture,  that  if  the  government  do  not  change  the  law,  the  law, 
in  half  a  century,  will  change  the  government;  and  that  this  change 
will  be,  not  in  favor  of  the  power  of  the  crown,  as  some  European 


207 

writers  have  supposed,  but  against  it.  Those  writers  only  reason 
upon  what  they  think  correct  general  principles,  in  relation  to  this 
subject.  They  acknowledge  a  want  of  experience.  Here,  we  have 
had  that  experience;  and  we  know,  that  a  multitude  of  small  pro- 
prietors, acting  with  intelligence,  and  that  enthusiasm  which  a 
common  cause  inspires,  constitute  not  only  a  formidable,  but  an  in- 
vincible power. 

The  true  principle  of  a  free  and  popular  government  would  seem 
to  be,  so  to  construct  it  as  to  give  to  all,  or  at  least  to  a  very  great 
majority,  an  interest  in  its  preservation.  To  found  it,  as  other  things 
are  founded,  on  men's  interest.  The  stability  of  government  re- 
quires, that  those  who  desire  its  continuance  should  be  more  power- 
ful than  those  who  desire  its  dissolution.  This  power,  of  course, 
is  not  always  to  be  measured  by  mere  numbers. — Education,  wealth, 
talents,  are  all  parts  and  elements  of  the  general  aggregate  of  pow- 
er; but  numbers  nevertheless  constitute,  ordinarily,  the  most  impor- 
tant consideration,  unless  indeed  there  be  a  military  force  in  the  hands 
of  the  few,  by  which  they  can  control  the  many.  In  this  country 
we  have  actual  existing  systems  of  government,  in  the  protection  of 
which  it  would  seem  a  great  majority,  both  in  numbers  and  in  other 
means  of  power  and  iniluence,  must  see  their  interest.  But  this 
state  of  things  is  not  brought  about  merely  by  written  political  con- 
stitutions, or  the  mere  manner  of  organizing  the  government;  but 
also  by  the  laws  which  regulate  the  descent  and  transmission  of 
property.  The  freest  government,  if  it  could  exist,  would  not  be  long 
acceptable,  if  the  tendency  of  the  laws  were  to  create  a  rapid  accu- 
mulation of  property  in  few  hands,  and  to  render  the  great  mass  of 
the  population  dependent  and  pennyless.  In  such  a  case,  the  pop- 
ular power  must  break  in  upon  the  rights  of  property,  or  else  the  in- 
fluence of  property  must  limit  and  control  the  exercise  of  popular 
power. — Universal  suffrage,  for  example,  could  not  long  exist  in  a 
community,  where  there  was  great  inequality  of  property.  The 
holders  of  estates  would  be  obliged,  in  such  case,  either  in  some 
way  to  restrain  the  right  of  suffrage,  or  else  such  right  of  suffrage 
would,  ere  long,  divide  the  property.  In  the  nature  of  things,  those 
who  have  not  property,  and  see  their  neighbours  possess  much  more 
than  they  think  them  to  need,  cannot  be  favorable  to  laws  made  for 
the  protection  of  property.  When  this  class  becomes  numerous,  it 
grows  clamorous.  It  looks  on  property  as  its  prey  and  plunder,  and 
is  naturally  ready,  at  all  times,  for  violence  and  revolution. 

It  would  seem  then  to  be  the  part  of  political  wisdom  to  found 
government  on  property;  and  to  establish  such  distribution  of  prop- 
erty, by  the  laws  which  regulate  its  transmission  and  alienation,  as 
to  interest  the  great  majority  of  society  in  the  protection  of  the  gov- 
ernment. This  is,  I  imagine,  the  true  theory  and  the  actual  prac- 
tice of  our  republican  institutions.  With  property  divided,  as  we 
have  it,  no  other  government  than  that  of  a  republic  could  be  main- 
tained, even  were  we  foolish  enough  to  desire  it.  There  is  reason, 
therefore,  to  expect  a  long  continuance  of  our  systems.  Party  and 
passion,  doubtless,  may  prevail  at  times,  and  much  temporary  mis- 
chief be  done.  Even  modes  and  forms  may  be  changed,  and 
perhaps  for  the  worse.     But  a  great  revolution,  in  regard  to  prop- 


208 

erty,  must  take  place,  before  our  governments  can  be  moved  from 
their  republican  basis,  unless  they  be  violently  struck  off  by  milita- 
ry power.  The  people  possess  the  property,  more  emphatically  than 
it  could  ever  be  said  of  the  people  of  any  other  country,  and  they 
can  have  no  interest  to  overturn  a  government  which  protects  that 
property  by  equal  laws. 

If  the  nature  of  our  institutions  be  to  found  government  on  prop- 
erty, and  that  it  should  look  to  those  who  hold  property  for  its  protec- 
tion, it  is  entirely  just  that  property  should  have  its  due  weight  and 
consideration,  in  political  arrangements.  Life,  and  personal  liberty, 
are,  no  doubt,  to  be  protected  by  law;  but  property  is  also  to  be  pro- 
tected by  law,  and  is  the  fund  out  of  which  the  means  for  protecting 
life  and  liberty  are  usually  furnished.  We  have  no  experience  that 
teaches  us  that  any  other  rights  are  safe,  where  property  is  not  safe. 
Confiscation  and  plunder,  are  generally  in  revolutionary  commotions 
not  far  before  banishment,  imprisonment,  and  death.  It  would  be 
monstrous  to  give  even  the  name  of  government,  to  any  association 
in  which  the  rights  of  property  should  not  be  competently  secured. 
The  disastrous  revolutions  which  the  world  has  witnessed,  those  po- 
litical thunderstorms  and  earthquakes  which  have  overthrown  the  pil- 
lars of  society,  from  their  very  deepest  foundations,  have  been  revo- 
lutions against  property. — Since  the  honorable  member  from  Quincy 
(President  Adams)  has  alluded,  on  this  occasion,  to  the  history  of  the 
ancient  states,  it  would  be  presumption  in  me  to  dwell  upon  it.  It  may 
be  truly  said,  however,  I  think,  that  Rome  herself  is  an  example  of  the 
mischievous  influence  of  the  popular  power,  when  disconnected  with 
property,  and  in  a  corrupt  age.  It  is  true,  the  arm  of  Caesar  prostrated 
her  liberty ;  but  Caesar  found  his  support  within  her  very  walls.  Those 
who  were  profligate  and  necessitous,  and  factious  and  desperate,  and 
capable  therefore  of  being  influenced  by  bribes  and  largesses,  which 
were  distributed  with  the  utmost  prodigality,  outnumbered,  and  out 
voted,  in  the  tribes  and  centuries,  the  substantial,  sober,  prudent  and 
faithful  citizens.  Property  was  in  the  hands  of  one  description  of  men, 
and  power  in  those  of  another;  and  the  balance  of  the  constitution 
was  destroyed.  Let  it  never  be  forgotten,  that  it  was  the  popular 
magistrates,  elevated  to  office  where  the  bad  outnumbered  the  good, — 
where  those  who  had  no  stake  in  the  commonwealth,  by  clamor,  and 
noise,  and  numbers,  drowned  the  voice  of  those  who  had, — that  laid 
the  neck  of  Rome  at  the  feet  of  her  conqueror.  When  Ceesar,  mani- 
festing a  disposition  to  march  his  army  into  Italy,  approached  that 
little  stream,  which  has  become  so  memorable,  from  its  association 
with  his  character  and  conduct,  a  decree  was  proposed  in  the  senate, 
declaring  him  a  public  enemy,  if  he  did  not  disband  his  troops.  To 
this  decree  the  popular  tribunes,  the  sworn  protectors  of  the  people, 
interposed  their  negative;  and  thus  opened  the  high  road  of  Italy, 
and  the  gates  of  Rome  herself,  to  the  approach  of  her  conqueror. 

The  English  revolution  of  1688  was  a  revolution  in  favor  of  prop- 
erty^ as  well  as  of  other  rights.  It  was  brought  about  by  the  men  of 
property,  for  their  security;  and  our  own  immortal  revolution  was 
undertaken,  not  to  shake  or  plunder  property,  but  to  protect  it.  The 
acts  of  which  the  country  complained,  were  such  as  violated  rights 
of  property.     An  immense  majority  of  all  those  who  had  an  interest 


209 

in  the  soil,  were  in  favor  of  the  revolution;  and  they  carried  it 
through,  looking  to  its  results  for  the  security  of  their  possessions. 
It  was  the  property  of  the  frugal  yeomanry  of  New  England,  hard 
earned,  but  freely  given,  that  enabled  her  to  act  her  proper  part,  and 
perform  her  full  duty,  in  achieving  the  independence  of  the  country. 

I  would  not  be  thought,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  be  among  those  who 
underrate  the  value  of  military  service.  My  heart  beats,  I  trust,  as 
responsive  as  any  one's,  to  a  soldier's  claim  for  honor  and  renown. 
It  has  ever  been  my  opinion,  however,  that  while  celebrating  the 
military  achievements  of  our  countrymen,  in  the  revolutionary  con- 
test, we  have  not  always  done  equal  justice  to  the  merits,  and  the 
sufferings,  of  those,  who  sustained,  on  their  property,  and  on  their 
means  of  subsistence,  the  great  burden  of  the  war.  Any  one,  who 
has  had  occasion  to  be  acquainted  with  the  records  of  the  New  Eng- 
land towns,  knows  well  how  to  estimate  those  merits,  and  those 
sufferings.  Nobler  records  of  patriotism  exist  nowhere.  Nowhere 
can  there  be  found  higher  proofs  of  a  spirit,  that  was  ready  to  hazard 
all,  to  pledge  all,  to  sacrifice  all,  in  the  cause  of  the  country.  Instan- 
ces were  not  unfrequent,  in  which  small  freeholders  parted  with 
their  last  hoof,  and  the  last  measure  of  corn  from  their  granaries,  to 
supply  provision  for  the  troops,  and  hire  service  for  the  ranks.  The 
voice  of  Otis  and  of  Adams  in  Faneuil  Hall,  found  its  full  and  true 
echo,  in  the  little  councils  of  the  interior  towns;  and  if  within  the 
Continental  Congress  patriotism  shone  more  conspicuously,  it  did 
not  there  exist  more  truly,  nor  burn  more  fervently;  it  did  not  render 
the  day  more  anxious,  or  the  night  more  sleepless;  it  sent  up  no  more 
ardent  prayer  to  God,  for  succour;  and  it  put  forth  in  no  greater 
degree,  the  fullness  of  its  effort  and  the  energy  of  its  whole  soul, 
and  spirit,  in  the  common  cause,  than  it  did  in  the  small  assemblies 
of  the  towns.  I  cannot,  therefore,  sir,  agree  that  it  is  in  favor  of 
society,  or  in  favor  of  the  people,  to  constitute  government,  with  an 
entire  disregard  to  those  who  bear  the  public  burdens  in  times  of 
great  exigency. — This  question  has  been  argued,  as  if  it  were  propo- 
sed only  to  give  an  advantage  to  a  few  rich  men.  I  do  not  so  under- 
stand it.  I  consider  it  as  giving  property,  generally,  a  representation 
in  the  Senate,  both  because  it  is  just  that  it  should  have  such 
representation,  and  because  it  is  a  convenient  mode  of  providing 
that  check,  which  the  constitution  of  the  legislature  requires.  I  do 
not  say  that  such  check  might  not  be  found  in  some  other  provision; 
but  this  is  the  provision  already  established,  and  it  is,  in  my  opinion, 
a  just  and  proper  one. 

I  will  beg  leave  to  ask,  sir,  whether  property  may  not  be  said  to 
deserve  this  portion  of  respect  and  power  in  the  government?  It 
pays,  at  this  moment,  I  think,  Jive  sixths  of  all  the  public  taxes; — 
one  sixth  only  being  raised  on  persons.  Not  only,  sir,  do  these  taxes 
support  those  burdens  which  all  governments  require,  but  we  have, 
in  New  England,  from  early  times  holden  property  to  be  subject  to 
another  great  public  use; — I  mean  the  support  of  schools. 

In  this  particular  we  may  be  allowed  to  claim  a  merit  of  a  very 

high  and  peculiar  character.     This  commonwealth,  with  other  of  the 

New  England  states,  early  adopted,  and  has  constantly  maintained 

the  principle,  that  it  is  the  undoubted  right,  and  the  bounden  duty 

27  s* 


210 

of  government,  to  provide  for  the  instruction  of  all  youth.  That 
which  is  elsewhere  left  to  chance,  or  to  charity,  we  secure  by  law. 
For  the  purpose  of  public  instruction,  we  hold  every  man  subject  to 
taxation,  in  proportion  to  his  property,  and  we  look  not  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  he,  himself,  have  or  have  not  children  to  be  benefited 
by  the  education  for  which  he  pays.  "W  e  regard  it  as  a  wise  and 
liberal  system  of  police,  by  which  property,  and  life,  and  the  peace 
of  society  are  secured.  We  seek  to  prevent,  in  some  measure,  the 
extension  of  the  penal  code,  by  inspiring  a  salutary  and  conservative 
principle  of  virtue,  and  of  knowledge,  in  an  early  age.  We  hope  to 
excite  a  feeling  of  respectability,  and  a  sense  of  character,  by  enlarg- 
ing the  capacity,  and  increasing  the  sphere  of  intellectual  enjoyment. 
By  general  instruction,  we  seek,  as  far  as  possible,  to  purify  the 
whole  moral  atmosphere;  to  keep  good  sentiments  uppermost,  and  to 
turn  the  strong  current  of  feeling  and  opinion,  as  well  as  the  cen- 
sures of  the  law,  and  the  denunciations  of  religion,  against  immor- 
ality and  crime.  We  hope  for  a  security,  beyond  the  law,  and  above 
the  law,  in  the  prevalence  of  enlightened  and  well  principled  moral 
sentiment.  We  hope  to  continue  and  to  prolong  the  time,  when,  in 
the  villages  and  farm  houses  of  New  England,  there  may  be  undis- 
turbed sleep,  within  unbarred  doors.  And  knowing  that  our 
government  rests  directly  on  the  public  will,  that  we  may  preserve 
it,  we  endeavour  to  give  a  safe  and  proper  direction  to  that  public  will. 
We  do  not,  indeed,  expect  all  men  to  be  philosophers,  or  statesmen; 
but  we  confidently  trust,  and  our  expectation  of  the  duration  of  our 
system  of  government  rests  on  that  trust,  that  by  the  diffusion  of 
general  knowledge,  and  good  and  virtuous  sentiments,  the  political 
fabric  may  be  secure,  as  well  against  open  violence  and  overthrow, 
as  against  the  slow  but  sure  undermining  of  licentiousness. 

We  know,  sir,  that  at  the  present  time  an  attempt  is  making  in  the 
English  Parliament  to  provide  by  law  for  the  education  of  the  poor, 
and  that  a  gentleman  of  distinguished  character,  (Mr.  Brougham) 
has  taken  the  lead,  in  presenting  a  plan  to  government  for  carrying 
that  purpose  into  effect.  And  yet,  although  the  representatives  of 
the  three  kingdoms  listened  to  him  with  astonishment  as  well  as 
delight,  we  hear  no  principles  with  which  we  ourselves  have  not 
been  familiar  from  youth;  we  see  nothing  in  the  plan,  but  an  approach 
towards  that  system  which  has  been  established,  in  this  state,  for 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half.  It  is  said,  that  in  England,  not 
more  than  one  child  infijteen,  possesses  the  means  of  being  taught  to 
read  and  write;  in  Wales,  one  in  liventy;  in  France,  until  lately,  when 
some  improvement  was  made,  not  more  than  one  in  thirty-Jive.  Now, 
sir,  it  is  hardly  too  strong  to  say,  that  in  this  state,  every  child  posses- 
ses such  means.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  an  instance  to  the  con- 
trary, unless  where  it  was  owing  to  the  negligence  of  the  parent — 
and  in  truth  the  means  are  actually  used  and  enjoyed  by  nearly  every 
one.  A  youth  of  fifteen,  of  either  sex,  who  cannot  both  read  and 
write,  is  very  unfrequently  to  be  found.  How  many  such  can  any 
member  of  this  convention  remember  to  have  met  with  in  ten  years? 
Sir,  who  can  make  this  comparison,  or  contemplate  this  spectacle, 
without  delight,  and  a  feeling  of  just  pride?  And  yet,  sir,  what  is 
it  but  the  property  of  the  rich,  devoted,  by  law,  to  the  education  ot 


211 

the  poor,  which  has  produced  this  state  of  things  ?  Does  any  history 
show  property  more  beneficently  applied?  Did  any  government 
ever  subject  the  property  of  those  who  have  estates,  to  a  burden, 
for  a  purpose  more  favorable  to  the  poor,  or  more  useful  to  the  whole 
community  ?  Sir,  property  and  the  power  which  the  law  exercises  over 
it,  for  the  purpose  of  instruction,  is  the  basis  of  the  system.  It  is 
entitled  to  the  respect  and  protection  of  government,  because,  in  a 
very  vital  respect,  it  aids  and  sustains  government.  The  honorable 
member  from  Worcester,  in  contending  for  the  admission  of  the  mere 
popular  principle  in  all  branches  of  the  government,  told  us,  that  our 
system  rested  on  the  intelligence  of  the  community.  He  told  us 
truly.  But  allow  me,  sir,  to  ask  the  honorable  gentleman,  what,  but 
property,  supplies  the  means  of  that  intelligence?  What  living 
fountain  feeds  this  ever-flowing,  ever-refreshing,  ever-fertilizing 
stream,  of  public  instruction  and  general  intelligence?  If  we  take 
away  from  the  towns  the  power  of  assessing  taxes  on  property,  will 
the  school  houses  remain  open?  If  we  deny  to  the  poor,  the  bene- 
fit which  they  now  derive  from  the  property  of  the  rich,  will  their 
children  remain  on  their  forms,  or  will  they  not,  rather,  be  in  the 
streets,  in  idleness  and  in  vice? 

I  might  ask  again,  sir,  how  is  it  with  religious  instruction?  Do 
not  the  towns  and  parishes,  raise  money,  by  vote  of  the  majority, 
assessed  on  property,  for  the  maintenance  of  religious  worship? 
Are  not  the  poor,  as  well  as  the  rich  benefited  by  the  means  of 
attending  on  public  worship,  and  do  they  not,  equally  with  the  rich, 
possess  a  voice  and  vote,  in  the  choice  of  the  minister,  and  in  all 
other  parish  concerns?  Does  any  man,  sir,  wish  to  try  the  experi- 
ment, of  striking  out  of  the  constitution  the  regard  which  it  has 
hitherto  maintained  for  property,  and  of  foregoing  also,  the  extraor- 
dinary benefit  which  society  among  us,  for  near  two  centuries,  has 
derived,  from  laying  the  burden  of  religious  and  literary  instruction 
of  all  classes  upon  property?  Does  any  man  wish  to  see  those  only 
worshipping  God,  who  are  able  to  build  churches  and  maintain 
ministers  for  themselves;  and  those  children  only  educated,  whose 
parents  possess  the  means  of  educating  them?  Sir,  it  is  as  unwise 
as  it  is  unjust,  to  make  property  an  object  of  jealousy.  Instead  of 
being,  in  any  just  sense,  a  popular  course,  such  a  course  would  be 
most  injurious  and  destructive  to  the  best  interests  of  the  people. 
The  nature  of  our  laws  sufficiently  secures  us  against  any  dangerous 
accumulations;  and,  used  and  diffused  as  we  have  it,  the  whole 
operation  of  property  is  in  the  highest  degree  useful,  both  to  the 
rich  and  to  the  poor.  I  rejoice,  sir,  that  every  man  in  this  commu- 
nity may  call  all  property  his  own,  so  far  as  he  has  occasion  for  it, 
to  furnish  for  himself  and  his  children  the  blessings  of  religious 
instruction  and  the  elements  of  knowledge.  This  celestial,  and  this 
earthly  light,  he  is  entitled  to  by  the  fundamental  laws.  It  is  every 
poor  man's  undoubted  birthright,  it  is  the  great  blessing  which  this 
constitution  has  secured  to  him,  it  is  his  solace  in  life,  and  it  may  well 
be  his  consolation  in  death,  that  his  country  stands  pledged,  by  the 
faith  which  it  has  plighted  to  all  its  citizens,  to  protect  his  children 
from  ignorance,  barbarism  and  vice. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  ask,  sir,  whether  we  have  not  seen,  and 


212 

whether  we  do  not  at  this  moment  see,  the  advantage  and  benefit  ot 
giving  security  to  property,  by  this  and  all  other  reasonable  and  just 
provisions?  The  constitution  has  stood,  on  its  present  basis,  forty 
years.  Let  me  ask,  what  state  has  been  more  distinguished  for  wise 
and  wholesome  legislation?  I  speak,  sir,  without  the  partiality  of  a 
native,  and  also  without  intending  the  compliment  of  a  stranger;  and 
I  ask,  what  example  have  we  had  of  better  legislation?  No  violent 
measures  affecting  property,  have  been  attempted. — Stop  laws, 
suspension  laws,  tender  laws,  all  the  tribe  of  these  arbitrary  and 
tyrannical  interferences  between  creditor  and  debtor,  which,  where- 
soever practised,  generally  end  in  the  ruin  of  both,  are  strangers  to 
our  statute  book.  An  upright  and  intelligent  judiciary  has  come  in 
aid  of  wholesome  legislation;  and  general  security,  for  public  and 
private  rights,  has  been  the  result.  I  do  not  say  that  this  is  pecu- 
liar— I  do  not  say  that  others  have  not  done  as  well.  It  is  enough, 
that  in  these  respects  we  shall  be  satisfied  that  we  are  not  behind 
our  neighbours.  No  doubt,  sir,  there  are  benefits  of  every  kind,  and 
of  great  value,  in  possessing  a  character  of  government,  both  in 
legislative  and  judicial  administration,  which  secures  well  the  rights 
of  property;  and  we  should  find  it  so,  by  unfortunate  experience, 
should  that  character  be  lost.  There  are  millions  of  personal  prop- 
erty, now  in  this  commonwealth,  which  are  easily  transferable,  and 
would  be  instantly  transferred  elsewhere,  if  any  doubt  existed  of  its 
entire  security.  I  do  not  know  how  much  of  this  stability  of  govern- 
ment, and  of  the  general  respect  for  it,  may  be  fairly  imputed  to  this 
particular  mode  of  organizing  the  senate.  It  has,  no  doubt,  had 
some  effect — It  has  shown  a  respect  for  the  rights  of  property,  and 
may  have  operated  on  opinion,  as  well  as  upon  measures.  Now,  to 
strike  out  and  obliterate  it,  as  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  in  a  high 
degree  unwise  and  improper. 

As  to  the  right  of  apportioning  senators  upon  this  principle,  I  do 
not  understand  how  there  can  be  a  question  about  it.  All  govern- 
ment is  a  modification  of  general  principles,  and  general  truths,  with 
a  view  to  practical  utility.  Personal  liberty,  for  instance,  is  a  clear 
right,  and  is  to  be  provided  for;  but  it  is  not  a  clearer  right  than  the 
right  of  property,  though  it  may  be  more  important.  It  is  therefore 
entitled  to  protection.  But  property  is  also  to  be  protected;  and 
when  it  is  remembered,  how  great  a  portion  of  the  people  of  this 
state  possess  property,  I  cannot  understand  how  its  protection  or  its 
influence  is  hostile  to  their  rights  and  privileges. 

For  these  reasons,  sir,  I  am  in  favor  of  maintaining  that  check,  in 
the  constitution  of  the  legislature,  which  has  so  long  existed  there. 

I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Worcester,  (Mr.  Lincoln)  to  be 
in  favor  of  a  check,  but  it  seems  to  me  he  would  place  it  in  the 
wrong  House.  Besides,  the  sort  of  check  he  proposes,  appears  to  me 
to  be  of  a  novel  nature,  as  a  balance  in  government.  He  pro- 
poses to  choose  the  senators  according  to  the  number  of  inhabitants; 
and  to  choose  representatives,  not  according  to  that  number,  but  in 
proportions  greatly  unequal  in  the  town  coporations.  It  has  been 
stated  to  result  from  computation,  and  I  do  not  understand  it  is  deni- 
ed, that,  on  his  system,  a  majority  of  the  representatives  will  be  cho- 
sen by  towns  not  containing  one  third  part  of  the  whole  population 


213 

of  the  state.  I  would  beg  to  ask,  sir,  on  what  principle  this  can 
stand;  especially  in  the  judgment  of  those  who  regard  population  as 
the  only  just  basis  of  representation?  But  sir,  I  have  a  preliminary 
objection  to  this  system;  which  is,  that  it  reverses  all  our  common 
notions,  and  constitutes  the  popular  House  upon  anti-popular  princi- 
ples. We  are  to  have  a  popular  Senate  of  thirty-six  members,  and 
we  are  to  place  the  check  of  the  system  in  a  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  two  hundred  and  fifty  members!  All  money  bills  are  to 
originate  in  the  House,  yet  the  House  is  not  to  be  the  popular 
branch.  It  is  to  exceed  the  Senate,  seven  or  eight  to  one,  in  point 
of  numbers — yet  the  Senate  is  to  be  chosen  on  the  popular  principle, 
and  the  House  on  some  other  principle. 

It  is  necessary  here,  sir,  to  consider  the  manner  of  electing  rep- 
resentatives in  this  commonwealth,  as  heretofore  practised,  the 
necessity  which  exists  of  reducing  the  present  number  of  represen- 
tatives, and  the  propositions  which  have  been  submitted  for  that 
purpose.  Representation  by  towns  or  townships,  (as  they  might 
have  been  originally  more  properly  called)  is  peculiar  to  New  Eng- 
land. It  has  existed  however,  since  the  first  settlement  of  the 
country.  These  local  districts  are  so  small,  and  of  such  unequal 
population,  that  if  every  town  is  to  have  one  representative,  and 
larger  towns  as  many  more  as  their  population,  compared  with  the 
smallest  town,  would  numerically  entitle  them  to,  a  very  numerous 
body  must  be  the  consequence,  in  any  large  state.  Five  hundred 
members,  I  understand,  may  now  be  constitutionally  elected  to  the 
House  of  Representatives;  the  very  statement  of  which  number 
shows  the  necessity  of  reduction.  I  agree,  sir,  that  this  is  a  very 
difficult  subject.  Here  are  three  hundred  towns,  all  possessing  the 
right  of  representation;  and  representation  by  towns,  is  an  ancient 
habit  of  the  people.  For  one,  I  am  disposed  to  preserve  this  mode, 
so  far  as  may  be  practicable.  There  is  always  an  advantage  in 
making  the  revisions,  which  circumstances  may  render  necessary,  in 
a  manner  which  does  no  violence  to  ancient  habits  and  established 
rules.  I  prefer  therefore,  a  representation  by  towns,  even  though 
it  should  necessarily  be  somewhat  numerous,  to  a  division  of  the 
state  into  new  districts,  the  parts  of  which  might  have  little  natural 
connexion  or  little  actual  intercourse  with  one  another.  But  I 
ground  my  opinion  in  this  respect  on  fitness  and  expediency,  and  the 
sentiments  of  the  people;  not  on  absolute  right.  The  town  corpo- 
rations, simply  as  such,  cannot  be  said  to  have  any  right  to  represen- 
tation; except  so  far  as  the  constitution  creates  such  right.  And  this 
I  apprehend  to  be  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  of  the  honorable 
member  from  Worcester.  He  contends,  that  the  smallest  town  has 
a  right  to  its  representative.  This  is  true;  but  the  largest  town 
(Boston)  has  a  right  also  to  fifty.  These  rights  are  precisely  equal. 
They  stand  on  the  same  ground,  that  is,  on  the  provisions  of  the 
existing  constitution.  The  honorable  member  thinks  it  quite  just  to 
reduce  the  right  of  the  large  town  from  fifty  to  ten,  and  yet,  that 
there  is  no  power  to  affect  the  right  of  the  small  town;  either  by 
uniting  it  with  another  small  town  for  the  choice  of  a  representative, 
or  otherwise.  But  I  do  not  assent  to  that  opinion.  If  it  be  right  to 
take  away  half,  or  three  fourths  of  the   representation  of  the  large 


214 

towns,  it  cannot  be  right  to  leave  that  of  the  small  towns  undiminish- 
ed. The  report  of  the  committee  proposes  that  these  small  towns 
shall  elect  a  member  every  other  year,  half  of  them  sending  one 
year,  and  half  the  next;  or  else  that  two  small  towns  shall  unite  and 
send  one  member  every  year.  There  is  something  apparently  irreg- 
ular and  anomalous  in  sending  a  member  every  other  year;  yet,  per- 
haps, it  is  no  great  departure  from  former  habits;  because  these 
small  towns,  being  by  the  present  constitution  compelled  to  pay 
their  own  members,  have  not  ordinarily  sent  them  oftener,  on  the 
average,  than  once  in  two  years. 

The  honorable  member  from  Worcester  founds  his  argument  on 
the  right  of  town  corporations,  as  such,  to  be  represented  in  the  leg- 
islature. If  he  only  mean  that  right  which  the  constitution  at  pres- 
ent secures,  his  observation  is  true,  while  the  constitution  remains 
unaltered.  But  if  he  intend  to  say  that  such  right  exists,  prior  to 
the  constitution,  and  independent  of  it,  I  ask,  whence  is  it  derived? 
Representation  of  the  people  has  heretofore  been  by  towns,  be- 
cause such  a  mode  has  been  thought  convenient.  Still  it  has  been 
the  representation  of  the  people.  It  is  no  corporate  right,  to  partake 
in  the  sovereign  power  and  form  part  of  the  legislature.  To  estab 
lish  this  right,  as  a  corporate  right,  the  gentleman  has  enumerated 
the  duties  of  the  town  corporation;  such  as  the  maintenance  of  pub- 
lic worship,  public  schools,  and  public  highways;  and  insists  that  the 
performance  of  these  duties  gives  the  town  a  right  to  a  representa- 
tive in  the  legislature.  But  I  would  ask,  sir,  what  possible  ground 
there  is  for  this  argument?  The  burden  of  these  duties  falls  not  on 
any  corporate  funds  belonging  to  the  towns,  but  on  the  people,  un- 
der assessments  made  on  them  individually,  in  their  town  meetings. 
As  distinct  from  their  individual  inhabitants,  the  towns  have  no  inter 
est  in  these  affairs.  These  duties  are  imposed  by  general  laws;  they 
are  to  be  performed  by  the  people,  and  if  the  people  are  represent- 
ed in  the  making  of  these  laws,  the  object  is  answered,  whether  they 
should  be  represented  in  one  mode  or  another.  But,  farther,  sir;  are 
these  municipal  duties  rendered  to  the  state,  or  are  they  not  rath- 
er performed  by  the  people  of  the  towns  for  their  own  benefit? 
The  general  treasury  derives  no  supplies  from  all  these  contribu 
tions.  If  the  towns  maintain  religious  instruction,  it  is  for  the  benefit 
of  their  own  inhabitants.  If  they  support  schools,  it  is  for  the  edu 
cation  of  the  children  of  their  inhabitants;  and  if  they  maintain  roads 
and  bridges,  it  is  also  for  their  own  convenience.  And  therefore,  sir, 
although  I  repeat  that  for  reasons  of  expediency  I  am  in  favor  of 
maintaining  town  representation,  as  far  as  it  can  be  done  with  a 
proper  regard  to  equality  of  representation,  I  entirely  disagree  to 
the  notion,  that  every  town  has  a  right,  which  an  alteration  of  the 
constitution  cannot  divest,  if  the  general  good  require  such  altera- 
tion, to  have  a  representative  in  the  legislature. — The  honorable 
member  has  declared  that  we  are  about  to  disfranchise  corporations, 
and  destroy  chartered  rights.  He  pronounces  this  system  of  repre- 
sentation an  outrage,  and  declares  that  we  are  forging  chains  and 
fetters  for  the  people  of  Massachusetts.  "  Chains  and  fetters!" 
This  convention  of  delegates,  chosen  by  the  people  within  this 
month,  and  going  back  to  the  people,  divested  of  all  power,  within 


215 

another  month,  yet  occupying  their  span  of  time  here,  in  forging 
chains  and  fetters  for  themselves  and  their  constituents!  "  Chains 
and  fetters!" — A  popular  assembly,  of  four  hundred  men,  combi- 
ning to  fabricate  these  manacles  for  the  people — and  nobody,  but  the 
honorable  member  from  Worcester,  with  sagacity  enough  to  detect 
the  horrible  conspiracy,  or  honesty  enough  to  disclose  it!  "  Chains 
and  fetters!"  An  assembly,  most  variously  composed; — men  of  all 
professions  and  all  parties;  of  different  ages,  habits  and  associa- 
tions— all  freely  and  recently  chosen  by  their  towns  and  districts; 
yet  this  assembly,  in  one  short  month,  contriving  to  fetter  and  enslave 
itself  and  its  constituents!  Sir,  there  are  some  things  too  extrava- 
gant for  the  ornament  and  decoration  of  oratory; — some  things  too 
excessive,  even  for  the  fictions  of  poetry;  and  I  am  persuaded  that  a 
little  reflection  would  satisfy  the  honorable  member,  that  when  he 
speaks  of  this  assembly  as  committing  outrages  on  the  rights  of  the 
people,  and  as  forging  chains  and  fetters  for  their  subjugation,  he 
does  as  great  injustice  to  his  own  character  as  a  correct  and  manly 
debater,  as  he  does  to  the  motives  and  the  intelligence  of  this  body. 
I  do  not  doubt,  sir,  that  some  inequality  exists,  in  the  mode  of  rep- 
resentatives proposed  by  the  committee.  A  precise  and  exact  equal- 
ity is  not  attainable,  in  any  mode.  Look  to  the  gentleman's  own 
proposition.  By  that,  Essex,  with  twenty  thousand  inhabitants 
more  than  Worcester,  would  have  twenty  representatives  less.  Suf- 
folk, which  according  to  numbers  would  be  entitled  to  twenty,  would 
have,  if  I  mistake  not,  eight  or  nine  only. — Whatever  else,  sir,  this 
proposition  may  be  a  specimen  of,  it  is  hardly  a  specimen  of  equal- 
ity. As  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  my  view  of  the  subject  is 
this.  Under  the  present  constitution,  the  towns  have  all  a  right  to 
send  representatives  to  the  legislature,  in  a  certain  fixed  propor- 
tion to  their  numbers.  It  has  been  found,  that  the  full  exercise  of 
this  right  fills  the  House  of  Representatives  with  too  numerous  a 
body.  What  then  is  to  be  done  ? — Why,  sir,  the  delegates  of  the 
towns  are  here  assembled,  to  agree,  mutually,  on  some  reasonable 
mode  of  reduction.  Now,  sir,  it  is  not  for  one  party  to  stand  sternly 
on  its  right,  and  demand  all  the  concession  from  another.  As  to 
right,  all  are  equal.  The  right  which  Hull  possesses  to  send  one, 
is  the  same  as  the  right  of  Boston  to  send  fifty.  Mutual  concession 
and  accommodation,  therefore,  can  alone  accomplish  the  purpose  of 
our  meeting.  If  Boston  consents,  instead  of  fifty,  to  send  but  twelve 
or  fifteen,  the  small  towns  must  consent,  either  to  be  united,  in  the 
choice  of  their  representatives,  with  other  small  towns,  or  to  send 
a  representative  less  frequently  than  every  year;  or  to  have  an  op- 
tion to  do  one  or  the  other  of  these,  hereafter,  as  shall  be  found 
most  convenient.  This  is  what  the  report  of  the  committee  propo- 
ses, and,  as  far  as  we  have  yet  learned,  a  great  majority  of  the 
delegates  from  small  towns  approve  the  plan.  I  am  willing,  there- 
fore, to  vote  for  this  part  of  the  report  of  the  committee;  thinking 
it  as  just  and  fair  a  representation,  and  as  much  reduced  in  point 
of  numbers,  as  can  be  reasonably  hoped  for,  without  giving  up  en- 
tirely the  system  of  representation  by  towns.  It  is  to  be  considered 
also,  that  according  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  the  pay  of  the 
members  is  to  be  out  of  the  public  treasury.     Everybody  must  see 


216 

how  this  will  operate  on  the  large  towns.  Boston,  for  example,  with 
its  twelve  or  fourteen  members,  will  pay  for  fifty.  Be  it  so;  it  is 
incident  to  its  property,  and  not  at  all  an  injustice,  if  proper  weight 
be  given  to  that  property,  and  proper  provision  be  made  for  its 
security. 

To  recur,  again,  to  the  subject  of  the  Senate — there  is  one  remark, 
made  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  of  which  I  wish  to  take  no- 
tice. It  is  said,  that  if  the  principle  of  representation,  in  the  Senate, 
by  property,  be  correct,  it  ought  to  be  carried  through;  whereas,  it  is 
limited  and  restrained,  by  a  provision  that  no  district  shall  be  entitled 
to  more  than  six  senators.  But  this  is  a  prohibition,  on  the  making 
of  great  districts,  generally;  not  merely  a  limitation  of  the  effect  of 
the  property  principle.  It  prevents  great  districts  from  being  made 
where  the  valuation  is  small,  as  well  as  where  it  is  large.  Were 
it  not  for  this,  or  some  similar  prohibition,  Worcester  and  Hamp- 
shire might  have  been  joined,  under  the  present  constitution,  and 
have  sent  perhaps  ten  or  twelve  senators.  The  limitation  is  a  gen- 
eral one,  introduced  for  general  purposes;  and  if  in  a  particular  in- 
stance it  bears  hard  on  any  county,  this  should  be  regarded  as  an 
evil  incident  to  a  good  and  salutary  rule,  and  ought  to  be,  as  I 
doubt  not  it  will  be,  quietly  borne. 

I  forbear,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  take  notice  of  many  minor  objections 
to  the  report  of  the  committee.  The  defence  of  that  report,  espe- 
cially in  its  details,  properly  belongs  to  other  and  abler  hands.  My 
purpose  in  addressing  you,  was,  simply,  to  consider  the  propriety  of 
providing  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature  a  real  check  upon  the 
other.  And  as  I  look  upon  that  principle  to  be  of  the  highest  prac- 
tical importance,  and  as  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  doctrines  con- 
tended for  would  go  to  subvert  it,  I  hope  I  may  be  pardoned  for 
detaining  the  committee  so  long. 


REMARKS 


IN  THE  CONVENTION,  UPON  A  RESOLUTION  TO  ALTER  THE  CONSTI- 
TUTION, SO  THAT  JUDICIAL  OFFICERS  SHALL  BE  REMOVABLE  BY 
THE  GOVERNOR  AND  COUNCIL  UPON  THE  ADDRESS  OF  TWO  THIRDS 
(INSTEAD  OF  A  MAJORITY)  OF  EACH  BRANCH  OF  THE  LEGISLA- 
TURE, AND  ALSO  THAT  THE  LEGISLATURE  SHALL  HAVE  POWER  TO 
CREATE  A  SUPREME  COURT  OF  EQUITY  AND  A  COURT  OF  APPEALS. 


Regrets  are  vain  for  what  is  past;  yet  I  hardly  know  how  it  has 
been  thought  to  be  a  regular  course  of  proceeding,  to  go  into  com- 
mittee on  this  subject,  before  taking  up  the  several  propositions 
which  now  await  their  final  readings  on  the  President's  table.  The 
consequence  is,  that  this  question  comes  on  by  surprise.  The 
chairman  of  the  select  committee  is  not  present;  many  of  the  most 
distinguished  members  of  the  convention  are  personally  so  situated, 
as  not  to  be  willing  to  take  part  in  the  debate, — and  the  first  law 
officer  of  the  government,  a  member  of  the  committee,  happens  at 
this  moment  to  be  in  a  place  (the  chair  of  the  committee  of  tho 
whole)  which  deprives  us  of  the  benefit  of  his  observations.  Under 
these  circumstances,  I  had  hoped  the  committee  would  rise. — It  has, 
however,  been  determined  otherwise,  and  I  must  therefore  beg  their 
indulgence  while  I  make  a  few  observations. 

As  the  constitution  now  stands,  all  judges  are  liable  to  be  removed 
from  office,  by  the  governor,  with  the  consent  of  the  council,  on  the 
address  of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature.  It  is  not  made  neces- 
sary that  the  two  houses  should  give  any  reasons  for  their  address, 
or  that  the  judge  should  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  I  look 
upon  this  as  against  common  right,  as  well  as  repugnant  to  the  gen- 
eral principles  of  the  government.  The  commission  of  the  judge 
purports  to  be,  on  the  face  of  it,  during  good  behavior.  He  has  an 
interest,  in  his  office.  To  give  an  authority  to  the  legislature  to  de- 
prive him  of  this,  without  trial  or  accusation,  is  manifestly  to  place 
the  judges  at  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature. 

The  question  is  not  what  the  legislature  probably  will  do,  but  what 
they  may  do.  If  the  judges,  in  fact,  hold  their  offices  only  so  long 
as  the  legislature  see  fit,  then  it  is  vain  and  illusory  to  say  that  the 
judges  are  independent  men,  incapable  of  being  influenced  by  hope 
or  by  fear;  but  the  tenure  of  their  office  is  not  independent.  The 
general  theory  and  principle  of  the  government  is  broken  in  upon, 
by  giving  the  legislature  this  power.  The  departments  of  govern- 
28  t 


218 

ment  are  not  equal,  coordinate  and  independent,  while  one  is  thus 
at  the  mercy  of  the  others.  What  would  be  said  of  a  proposition 
to  authorise  the  governor  or  judges  to  remove  a  senator,  or  member 
of  the  house  of  representatives  from  office  ? — And  yet,  the  general 
theory  of  the  constitution  is  to  make  the  judges  as  independent  as 
members  of  the  legislature.  I  know  not  whether  a  greater  improve- 
ment has  been  made  in  government  than  to  separate  the  judiciary 
from  the  executive  and  legislative  branches,  and  to  provide  for  the 
decision  of  private  rights,  in  a  manner,  wholly  uninfluenced  by  rea- 
sons of  state,  or  considerations  of  party  or  of  policy.  It  is  the  glory 
of  the  British  constitution  to  have  led  in  the  establishment  of  this 
most  important  principle.  It  did  not  exist  in  England  before  the 
revolution  of  1688,  and  its  introduction  has  seemed  to  give  a  new 
character  to  the  tribunals.  It  is  not  necessary  to  state  the  evils 
which  had  been  experienced,  in  that  country,  from  dependent  and 
timeserving  judges.  In  matters  of  mere  property,  in  causes  of  no 
political  or  public  bearing,  they  might  perhaps  be  safely  trusted; 
but  in  great  questions  concerning  public  liberty,  or  the  rights  of  the 
subject,  they  were,  in  too  many  cases,  not  fit  to  be  trusted  at  all. 
Who  would  now  quote  Scroggs,  or  Saunders,  or  Jeffries,  on  a  ques- 
tion concerning  the  right  of  the  habeas  corpus,  or  the  right  of 
suffrage,  or  the  liberty  of  the  press,  or  any  other  subject  closely 
connected  with  political  freedom?  Yet  on  all  these  subjects,  the 
sentiments  of  the  English  judges  since  the  revolution, — of  Somers, 
Holt,  Jreby,  Jekyl,  &c,  are,  in  general,  favorable  to  civil  liberty, 
and  receive  and  deserve  great  attention,  whenever  referred  to.  In- 
deed, Massachusetts  herself  knows,  by  her  own  history,  what  is  to 
be  expected  from  dependent  judges. — Her  own  charter  was  declared 
forfeited,  without  a  hearing,  in  a  court  where  such  judges  sat. 

When  Charles  the  second,  and  his  brother  after  him,  attempted 
the  destruction  of  chartered  rights,  both  in  the  kingdom  and  out  of 
it,  the  mode  was  by  judgments  obtained  in  the  courts.  It  is  well 
known,  that  after  the  prosecution  against  the  city  of  London  was 
commenced,  and  while  it  was  pending,  the  judges  were  changed; 
and  Saunders,  who  had  been  consulted  on  the  occasion,  and  had 
advised  the  proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  crown,  was  made  chief 
justice  for  the  very  purpose  of  giving  a  judgment  in  favor  of  the 
crown;  his  predecessor  being  removed  to  make  room  for  him. 
Since  the  revolution  of  1688,  an  entire  new  character  has  been  given 
to  English  judicature.  The  judges  have  been  made  independent, 
and  the  benefit  has  been  widely  and  deeply  felt.  A  similar  improve- 
ment seems  to  have  made  its  way  into  Scotland.  Before  the  union 
of  the  kingdoms,  it  cannot  be  said  that  there  was  any  judicial  inde- 
pendence in  Scotland;  and  the  highest  names  in  Scottish  jurispru- 
dence have  been  charged  with  being  under  influences  which  could 
not,  in  modern  times,  be  endured.  It  is  even  said,  that  the  practice 
of  entails  did  not  extensively  exist  in  Scotland  till  about  the  time  of 
the  reigns  of  the  last  princes  of  the  Stuart  race,  and  was  then  in- 
troduced, to  guard  against  unjust  forfeitures.  It  is  strange  indeed, 
that  this  should  happen  at  so  late  a  period,  and  that  a  most  unnatu- 
ral and  artificial  state  of  property  should  be  owing  to  the  fear  of 
deoendent  judicatures.     I  might  add  here,  that  the  heritable  jurisdic- 


219 

tims,  the  greatest  almost  of  all  evils,  were  not  abolished  in  Scotland 
till  about  the  middle  of  the  last  century;  so  slowly  does  improvement 
make  progress  when  opposed  by  ignorance,  prejudice  or  interest. 

In  our  own  country,  it  was  for  years  a  topic  of  complaint,  before 
the  revolution,  that  justice  was  administered,  in  some  of  the  colo- 
nies, by  judges  dependent  on  the  British  crown.  The  Declaration 
of  Independence,  itself,  puts  forth  this  as  a  prominent  grievance, 
among  those  which  justified  the  revolution.  The  British  king,  it 
declares,  "  had  made  judges  dependent  on  his  own  will  alone,  for  the 
tenure  of  their  offices."  It  was  therefore  to  be  expected,  that  in 
establishing  their  own  governments,  this  important  point  of  the  in- 
dependence of  the  judicial  power  would  be  regarded  by  the  states. 
Some  of  them  have  made  greater,  and  others  less  provision  on  this 
subject;  the  more  recent  constitutions,  I  believe,  being  generally 
framed  with  the  most  and  best  guards  for  judicial  independence. 

Those  who  oppose  any  additional  security  for  the  tenure  of  judicial 
office,  have  pressed  to  know  what  evil  has  been  experienced — what 
injury  has  arisen  from  the  constitution  as  it  is.  Perhaps  none; — 
but  if  evils  probably  may  arise,  the  question  is,  whether  the  subject 
be  not  so  important  as  to  render  it  prudent  to  guard  against  that 
evil.  If  evil  do  arise,  we  may  be  sure  it  will  be  a  great  evil;  if 
this  power  should  happen  to  be  abused,  it  would  be  most  mischiev- 
ous in  its  consequences.  It  is  not  a  sufficient  answer,  to  say  that 
we  have  as  yet  felt  no  inconvenience.  We  are  bound  to  look  to 
probable  future  events.  We  have,  too,  the  experience  of  other 
states.  Connecticut,  having  had  judges  appointed  annually,  from 
the  time  of  Charles  the  second,  in  the  recent  alteration  of  her  con- 
stitution, has  provided,  that  hereafter  they  shall  hold  their  office 
during  good  behavior,  subject  to  removal  on  the  address  of  two  thirds 
of  each  house  of  the  legislature.  In  Pennsylvania,  the  judges  may 
be  removed,  "  for  any  reasonable  cause,"  on  the  address  of  two 
thirds  of  the  two  houses.  In  some  of  the  states,  three  fourths  of  each 
house  is  required.  The  new  constitution  of  Maine  has  a  provision, 
with  which  1  should  be  content;  which  is,  that  no  judge  shall  be 
liable  to  be  removed  by  the  legislature  till  the  matter  of  his  accusa- 
tion has  been  made  known  to  him,  and  he  has  had  an  opportunity  of 
being  heard  in  his  defence.  This  seems  no  more  than  common  jus- 
tice; and  yet  it  is  much  greater  than  any  security  which  at  present 
exists  in  the  constitution  of  this  commonwealth. 

It  will  be  found,  if  I  mistake  not,  that  there  are  not  more  than 
two  or  three,  out  of  all  the  states,  which  have  left  the  tenure  of 
judicial  office  at  the  entire  pleasure  of  the  legislature.  It  cannot 
be  denied,  that  one  great  object  of  written  constitutions  is  to  keep 
the  departments  of  government  as  distinct  as  possible;  and  for  this 
purpose  to  impose  restraints.  And  it  is  equally  true,  that  there  is 
no  department  on  wjiich  it  is  more  necessary  to  impose  restraints 
than  the  legislature.  The  tendency  of  things  is  almost  always  to 
augment  the  power  of  that  department,  in  its  relation  to  the  judiciary. 
The  judiciary  is  composed  of  few  persons,  and  those  not  such  as  mix 
habitually  in  the  pursuits  and  objects  which  most  engage  public  men. 
They  are  not,  or  never  should  be,  political  men.  They  have  often 
unpleasant  duties  to  perform,  and  their  conduct  is  often  liable  to  be 


220 

canvassed  and  censured,  where  their  reasons  for  it  are  not  known, 
or  cannot  be  understood.  The  legislature  holds  the  public  purse. 
It  fixes  the  compensation  of  all  other  departments  :  it  applies,  as 
well  as  raises,  all  revenue.  It  is  a  numerous  body,  and  necessarily 
carries  along  with  it  a  great  force  of  public  opinion.  Its  members 
are  public  men,  in  constant  contact  with  one  another,  and  with  their 
constituents.  It  would  seem  to  be  plain  enough,  that,  without 
constitutional  provisions  which  should  be  fixed  and  certain,  such  a 
department,  in  case  of  excitement,  would  be  able  to  encroach  on  the 
judiciary. — Therefore  is  it,  that  a  security  of  judicial  independence 
becomes  necessary;  and  the  question  is,  whether  that  independence 
be  at  present  sufficiently  secured. 

The  constitution  being  the  supreme  law,  it  follows  of  course,  that 
every  act  of  the  legislature,  contrary  to  that  law,  must  be  void. 
But  who  shall  decide  this  question?  Shall  the  legislature  itself 
decide  it?  If  so,  then  the  constitution  ceases  to  be  a  legal  and 
becomes  only  a  moral  restraint  on  the  legislature.  If  they,  and  they 
only,  are  to  judge  whether  their  acts  be  conformable  to  the  constitu- 
tion, then  the  constitution  is  admonitory  or  advisory  only;  not  legally 
binding;  because,  if  the  construction  of  it  rest  wholly  with  them,  their 
discretion,  in  particular  cases,  may  be  in  favor  of  very  erroneous  and 
dangerous  constructions.  Hence  the  courts  of  law,  necessarily, 
when  the  case  arises,  must  decide  upon  the  validity  of  particular 
acts. — These  cases  are  rare,  at  least  in  this  commonwealth;  but  they 
would  probably  be  less  so,  if  the  power  of  the  judiciary,  in  this 
respect,  were  less  respectable  than  it  is. 

It  is  the  theory  and  plan  of  the  constitution  to  restrain  the  legisla- 
ture, as  well  as  other  departments,  and  to  subject  their  acts  to 
judicial  decision,  whenever  it  appears  that  such  acts  infringe  consti- 
tutional limits;  and  without  this  check,  no  certain  limitation  could 
exist  on  the  exercise  of  legislative  power.  The  constitution,  for 
example,  declares,  that  the  legislature  shall  not  suspend  the  benefit 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  except  under  certain  limitations.  If  a 
law  should  happen  to  be  passed  restraining  personal  liberty,  and  an 
individual,  feeling  oppressed  by  it,  should  apply  for  his  habeas  corpus, 
must  not  the  judges  decide  what  is  the  benefit  of  habeas  corpus, 
intended  by  the  constitution;  what  it  is  to  suspend  it,  and  whether 
the  acts  of  the  legislature  do,  in  the  given  case,  conform  to  the  con- 
stitution? All  these  questions  would  of  course  arise.  The  judge 
is  bound  by  his  oath  to  decide  according  to  law. — The  constitution 
is  the  supreme  law.  Any  act  of  the  legislature,  therefore,  inconsis- 
tent with  that  supreme  law,  must  yield  to  it;  and  any  judge,  seeing 
this  inconsistency,  and  yet  giving  effect  to  the  law,  would  violate 
both  his  duty  and  his  oath.  But  it  is  evident  that  this  power,  to  be 
useful,  must  be  lodged  in  independent  hands.  If  the  legislature 
may  remove  judges  at  pleasure,  assigning  no  cause  for  such  removal, 
of  course  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  they  would  often  find  decisions 
against  the  constitutionality  of  their  own  acts.  If  the  legislature 
should,  unhappily,  be  in  a  temper  to  do  a  violent  thing,  it  would 
probably  take  care  to  see  that  the  bench  of  justice  was  so  constituted 
as  to  agree  with  it  in  opinion. 


221 

It  is  unpleasant  to  allude  to  other  states  for  negative  examples;  yet, 
if  any  one  were  inclined  to  the  inquiry,  it  might  be  found,  that  cases 
had  happened  in  which  laws,  known  to  be  at  best  very  questiona- 
ble as  to  their  consistency  with  the  constitution,  had  been  passed; 
and  at  the  same  session,  effectual  measures  taken,  under  the  power 
of  removal  by  address,  to  create  a  new  bench.  Such  a  coincidence 
might  be  accidental;  but  the  happening  of  such  accidents  often 
would  destroy  the  balance  of  free  governments.  The  history  of  all 
the  states,  I  believe,  shows  the  necessity  of  settled  limits  to  legisla- 
tive power.  There  are  reasons,  entirely  consistent  with  upright  and 
patriotic  motives,  which,  nevertheless,  evince  the  danger  of  legisla- 
tive encroachments.  The  subject  is  fully  treated  by  Mr.  Madison, 
in  some  numbers  of  the  Federalist,  which  well  deserve  the  consid- 
eration of  the  convention. 

There  is  nothing,  after  all,  so  important  to  individuals  as  the  up- 
right administration  of  justice.  This  comes  home  to  every  man;  life, 
liberty,  reputation,  property,  all  depend  on  this. — No  government 
does  its  duty  to  the  people,  which  does  not  make  ample  and  stable 
provision  for  the  exercise  of  this  part  of  its  powers.  Nor  is  it 
enough,  that  there  are  courts  which  will  deal  justly  with  mere  private 
questions.  We  look  to  the  judicial  tribunal  for  protection  against 
illegal  or  unconstitutional  acts,  from  whatever  quarter  they  may  pro- 
ceed. The  courts  of  law,  independent  judges,  and  enlightened 
juries,  are  citadels  of  popular  liberty,  as  well  as  temples  of  private 
justice.  The  most  essential  rights  connected  with  political  liberty, 
are  there  canvassed,  discussed,  and  maintained;  and  if  it  should  at 
any  time  so  happen  that  these  rights  should  be  invaded,  there  is  no 
remedy  but  a  reliance  on  the  courts,  to  protect  and  vindicate  them. 
There  is  danger,  also,  that  legislative  bodies  will  sometimes  pass  laws 
interfering  with  other  private  rights,  besides  those  connected  with 
political  liberty.  Individuals  are  too  apt  to  apply  to  the  legislative 
power  to  interfere  with  private  cases,  or  private  property;  and  such 
applications  sometimes  meet  with  favor  and  support.  There  would 
be  no  security,  if  these  interferences  were  not  subject  to  some  sub- 
sequent constitutional  revision,  where  all  parties  could  be  heard,  and 
justice  administered  according  to  standing  laws. 

These  considerations  are  among  those  which,  in  my  opinion,  ren- 
der an  independent  judiciary  equally  essential  to  the  preservation  of 
private  rights  and  public  liberty.  I  lament  the  necessity  of  deciding 
this  question  at  the  present  moment;  and  should  hope,  if  such  imme- 
diate decision  were  not  demanded,  that  some  modification  of  this 
report  might  prove  acceptable  to  the  committee,  since,  in  my  judg- 
ment, some  provision,  beyond  what  exists  in  the  present  constitution, 
is  necessary. 


T* 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE 
OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JAN.  2,  1815. 


On  the  2d  January,  1815,  the  bill  to  incorporate  a  bank  being  under  consideration,  Mr. 
Webster  moved  that  it  be  recommitted  to  a  select  committee,  with  instructions  to  make 
the  following  alterations,  to  wit : — 

1.  To  reduce  the  capital  to  twenty-five  millions,  with  liberty  to  the  government  to  subscribe 

on  its  own  account,  five  millions. 

2.  To  strike  out  the  thirteenth  section. 

3.  To  strike  out  so  much  of  said  bill  as  makes  it  obligatory  on  the  bank  to  lend  money  to 

government. 

4.  To  introduce  a  section  providing,  that  if  the  bank  do  not  commence  its  operations  with- 

in the  space  of  months,  from  the  day  of  the  passing  of  the  act,  the  charter  shall 

thereby  be  forfeited. 

5.  To  insert  a  section  allowing  interest  at  die  rate  of  per  cent,  on  any  bill  or  note 

of  the  bank,  of  which  payment  shall  have  been  duly  demanded,  according  to  its  tenor, 
and  refused ;  and  to  inflict  penalties  on  any  directors  who  shall  issue  any  bills  or  notes 
during  any  suspension  of  specie  payment  at  the  bank. 

6  To  provide  that  the  said  twenty-five  millions  of  capital  stock  shall  be  composed  of  five 
millions  of  specie,  and  twenty  millions  of  any  of  the  stocks  of  the  United  States  bear- 
ing an  interest  of  six  per  cent,  or  of  treasury  notes. 

7.  To  strike  out  of  the  bill  that  part  of  it  which  restrains  die  bank  from  selling  its  stock 
during  the  war. 

In  support  of  tiiis  motion,  the  following  speech  was  delivered.  The  motion  did  not  prevail, 
but  die  bill  itself  was  rejected  the  same  day  on  the  third  reading.  Some  of  the  main 
principles  of  diese  instructions  were  incorporated  into  die  charter  of  die  present  bank, 
when  that  charter  was  granted  the  following  year;  especially  those,  which  were  more 
particularly  designed  to  insure  the  payment  of  the  notes  of  the  bank  in  specie,  at  all 
times,  on  demand. 

However  the  House  may  dispose  of  the  motion  before  it,  I  do 
not  regret  that  it  has  been  made.  One  object  intended  by  it,  at 
least,  is  accomplished.  It  presents  a  choice,  and  it  shows  that  the 
opposition  which  exists  to  the  bill  in  its  present  state,  is  not  an  un- 
distinguishing  hostility  to  whatever  may  be  proposed  as  a  national 
bank,  but  a  hostility  to  an  institution  of  such  a  useless  and  danger- 
ous nature,  as  it  is  believed  the  existing  provisions  of  the  bill  would 
establish. 

If  the  bill  should  be  recommitted  and  amended  according  to  the 
instructions  which  I  have  moved,  its  principles  will  be  materially 
changed.     The  capital  of  the  proposed  bank  will  be  reduced  from 


223 

fifty  to  thirty  millions  :  and  composed  of  specie  and  stocks  in  nearly 
the  same  proportions  as  the  capital  of  the  former  bank  of  the  United 
States.  The  obligation  to  lend  thirty  millions  of  dollars  to  govern- 
ment, an  obligation  which  cannot  be  performed  without  committing 
an  act  of  bankruptcy,  will  be  struck  out.  The  power  to  suspend 
the  payment  of  its  notes  and  bills  will  be  abolished,  and  the  prompt 
and  faithful  execution  of  its  contracts  secured,  as  far  as,  from  the 
nature  of  things,  it  can  be  secured.  The  restriction  on  the  sale  of 
its  stocks  will  be  removed,  and  as  it  is  a  monopoly,  provision  will  be 
made  that  if  it  should  not  commence  its  operations  in  reasonable 
time,  the  grant  shall  be  forfeited.  Thus  amended,  the  bill  would 
establish  an  institution  not  unlike  the  last  bank  of  the  United  States 
in  any  particular  which  is  deemed  material,  excepting  only  the  legal- 
ized amount  of  capital. 

To  a  bank  of  this  nature  I  should  at  any  time  be  willing  to  give 
my  support,  not  as  a  measure  of  temporary  policy,  or  as  an  expedi- 
ent to  find  means  of  relief  from  the  present  poverty  of  the  treasury; 
but  as  an  institution  of  permanent  interest  and  importance,  useful 
to  the  government  and  country  at  all  times,  and  most  useful  in  times 
of  commerce  and  prosperity. 

I  am  sure,  sir,  that  the  advantages  which  would  at  present  result 
from  any  bank,  are  greatly  overrated.  To  look  to  a  bank,  as  a 
source  capable,  not  only  of  affording  a  circulating  medium  to  the 
country,  but  also  of  supplying  the  ways  and  means  of  carrying  on 
the  war,  especially  at  a  time  when  the  country  is  without  commerce, 
is  to  expect  much  more  than  ever  will  be  obtained.  Such  high- 
wrought  hopes  can  end  only  in  disappointment.  The  means  of  sup- 
porting an  expensive  war  are  not  of  quite  so  easy  acquisition. 
Banks  are  not  revenue.  They  cannot  supply  its  place.  They  may 
afford  facilities  to  its  collection  and  distribution.  They  may  furnish, 
with  convenience,  temporary  loans  to  government,  in  anticipation 
of  its  taxes,  and  render  important  assistance,  in  divers  ways,  to  the 
general  operation  of  finance.  They  are  useful  to  the  state  in  their 
proper  place  and  sphere,  but  they  are  not  sources  of  national  income. 

The  fountains  of  revenue  must  be  sunk  deeper.  The  credit  and 
circulation  of  bank  paper  are  the  effects,  rather  than  the  causes  of 
a  profitable  commerce,  and  a  well  ordered  system  of  finance.  They 
are  the  props  of  national  wealth  and  prosperity,  not  the  foundations 
of  them.  Whoever  shall  attempt  to  restore  the  fallen  credit  of  this 
country,  by  the  creating  of  new  banks,  merely  that  they  may  create 
new  paper,  and  that  government  may  have  a  chance  of  borrowing 
where  it  has  not  borrowed  before,  will  find  himself  miserably  de- 
ceived. It  is  under  the  influence  of  no  such  vain  hopes,  that  1  yield 
my  assent  to  the  establishment  of  a  bank  on  sound  and  proper  prin- 
ciples. The  principal  good  I  expect  from  it  is  rather  future  than 
present.  I  do  not  see,  indeed,  that  it  is  likely  to  produce  evil  at 
any  time.  In  times  to  come,  it  will,  I  hope,  be  useful.  If  it  were 
only  to  be  harmless,  there  would  be  sufficient  reason  why  it  should 
be  supported,  in  preference  to  such  a  contrivance  as  is  now  in  con- 
templation. 

The  bank  which  will  be  erected  by  the  bill,  if  it  should  pass  in 
its  present  form,  is  of  a  most   extraordinary,  and,  as  I  think,  alarm- 


224 

ing  nature.  The  capital  is  to  be  fifty  millions  of  dollars;  five  mil- 
lions in  gold  and  silver,  twenty  millions  in  the  public  debt  created 
since  the  war,  ten  millions  in  treasury  notes,  and  fifteen  millions  to 
be  subscribed  by  government,  in  stock  to  be  created  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  ten  millions  in  treasury  notes,  when  received  in  pay- 
ment of  subscriptions  to  the  bank,  are  to  be  funded  also  in  United 
States'  stocks.  The  stock  subscribed  by  government  on  its  own 
account,  and  those  in  which  the  treasury  notes  are  to  be  funded,  to 
be  redeemable  only  at  the  pleasure  of  the  government.  The  war 
stock  will  be  redeemable  according  to  the  terms  upon  which  the  late 
loans  have  been  negotiated. 

The  capital  of  the  bank,  then,  will  be  five  millions  of  specie  and 
forty-five  millions  of  government  stocks.  In  other  words,  the  bank 
will  possess  five  millions  of  dollars,  and  the  government  will  owe  it 
forty-five  millions.  This  debt  from  government,  the  bank  is  re- 
strained from  selling  during  the  war,  and  government  is  excused 
from  paying,  until  it  shall  see  fit.  The  bank  is  also  to  be  under 
obligation  to  loan  government  thirty  millions  of  dollars  on  demand, 
to  be  repaid,  not  when  the  convenience  or  necessity  of  the  bank  may 
require,  but  when  debts  due  to  the  bank,  from  government,  are  paid; 
that  is,  when  it  shall  be  the  good  pleasure  of  government.  This 
sum  of  thirty  millions  is  to  supply  the  necessities  of  government, 
and  to  supersede  the  occasion  of  other  loans.  This  loan  will  doubt- 
less be  made  on  the  first  day  of  the  existence  of  the  bank,  because 
the  public  wants  can  admit  of  no  delay.  Its  condition,  then,  will  be, 
that  it  has  five  millions  of  specie,  if  it  has  been  able  to  obtain  so 
much,  and  a  debt  of  seventy-five  millions,  no  part  of  which  it  can 
either  sell  or  call  in,  due  to  it  from  government. 

The  loan  of  thirty  millions  to  government  can  only  be  made  by 
an  immediate  issue  of  bills  to  that  amount.  If  these  bills  should 
return,  the  bank  will  not  be  able  to  pay  them.  This  is  certain,  and 
to  remedy  this  inconvenience,  power  is  given  to  the  directors,  by  the 
act,  to  suspend,  at  their  own  discretion,  the  payment  of  their  notes, 
until  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  otherwise  order.  The 
President  will  give  no  such  order,  because  the  necessities  of  gov- 
ernment will  compel  it  to  draw  on  the  bank  till  the  bank  becomes 
as  necessitous  as  itself.  Indeed,  whatever  orders  may  be  given  or 
withheld,  it  will  be  utterly  impossible  for  the  bank  to  pay  its  notes. 
No  such  thing  is  expected  from  it.  The  first  note  it  issues  will  be 
'dishonored  on  its  return,  and  yet  it  will  continue  to  pour  out  its 
paper,  so  long  as  government  can  apply  it  in  any  degree  to  its  pur- 
poses. 

What  sort  of  an  institution,  sir,  is  this?  It  looks  less  like  a  bank, 
than  a  department  of  government.  It  will  be  properly  the  paper- 
money  department.  Its  capital  is  government  debts  ;  the  amount 
of  its  issues  will  depend  on  government  necessities;  government,  in 
effect,  absolves  itself  from  its  own  debts  to  the  bank,  and  by  way 
of  compensation  absolves  the  bank  from  its  own  contracts  with 
others.  This  is,  indeed,  a  wonderful  scheme  of  finance.  The 
government  is  to  grow  rich,  because  it  is  to  borrow  without  the  obli- 
gation of  repaying,  and  is  to  borrow  of  a  bank  which  issues  paper 
without  liability  to  redeem  it.     If  this  bank,  like  other  institutions 


225 

which  dull  and  plodding  common  sense  has  erected,  were  to  pay  its 
debts,  it  must  have  some  limits  to  its  issues  of  paper,  and  therefore, 
there  would  be  a  point  beyond  which  it  could  not  make  loans  to 
government.  This  would  fall  short  of  the  wishes  of  the  contrivers 
of  this  system.  They  provide  for  an  unlimited  issue  of  paper,  in 
an  entire  exemption  from  payment.  They  found  their  bank,  in  the 
first  place,  on  the  discredit  of  government,  and  then  hope  to  enrich 
government  out  of  the  insolvency  of  their  bank.  With  them,  pov- 
erty itself  is  the  main  source  of  supply,  and  bankruptcy  a  mine  of 
inexhaustible  treasure.  They  rely  not  in  the  ability  of  the  bank, 
but  in  its  beggary;  not  in  gold  and  silver  collected  in  its  vaults,  to 
pay  its  debts,  and  fulfil  its  promises,  but  in  its  locks  and  bars,  pro- 
vided by  statute,  to  fasten  its  doors  against  the  solicitations  and 
clamors  of  importunate  creditors.  Such  an  institution,  they  flatter 
themselves,  will  not  only  be  able  to  sustain  itself,  but  to  buoy  up 
the  sinking  credit  of  the  government.  A  bank  which  does  not  pay, 
is  to  guaranty  the  engagements  of  a  government  which  does  not  pay! 
"John  Doe  is  to  become  security  for  Richard  Roe."  Thus  the 
empty  vaults  of  the  treasury  are  to  be  filled  from  the  equally  empty 
vaults  of  the  bank,  and  the  ingenious  invention  of  a  partnership  be- 
tween insolvents  is  to  restore  and  reestablish  the  credit  of  both. 

Sir,  I  can  view  this  only  as  a  system  of  rank  speculation,  and 
enormous  mischief.  Nothing  in  our  condition  is  worse,  in  my  opin- 
ion, than  the  inclination  of  government  to  throw  itself  upon  such 
desperate  courses.  If  we  are  to  be  saved,  it  is  not  to  be  by  such 
means.  If  public  credit  is  to  be  restored,  this  is  not  one  of  the 
measures  that  will  help  to  restore  it.  If  the  treasury  is  exhausted, 
this  bank  will  not  fill  it  with  anything  valuable.  If  a  safe  circula- 
ting medium  be  wanted  for  the  community,  it  will  not  be  found  in 
the  paper  of  such  a  corporation. 

I  wish,  sir,  that  those  who  imagine  that  these  objects  or  any  of 
them  will  be  effected  by  such  a  bank  as  this,  would  describe  the 
manner  in  which  they  expect  it  to  be  done.  What  is  the  process, 
which  is  to  produce  these  results?  If  it  is  perceived,  it  can  be  de- 
scribed. The  bank  will  not  operate  either  by  miracle  or  magic. 
Whoever  expects  any  good  from  it,  ought  to  be  able  to  tell  us  in 
what  way  that  good  is  to  be  produced.  As  yet,  we  have  had  noth- 
ing but  general  ideas,  and  vague  and  loose  expressions.  An  indefi- 
nite and  indistinct  notion  is  entertained,  nobody  here  seems  to  know 
on  what  ground,  that  this  bank  is  to  reanimate  public  credit,  fill  the 
treasury,  and  remove  all  the  evils  that  have  arisen  from  the  depre- 
ciation of  the  paper  of  the  existing  banks. 

Some  gentlemen  who  do  not  profess  themselves  to  be,  in  all  re- 
spects, pleased  with  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  seem  to  content  them- 
selves with  an  idea  that  nothing  better  can  be  obtained,  and  that  it 
is  necessary  to  do  something.  A  strong  impression  that  something 
must  be  done,  is  the  origin  of  many  bad  measures.  It  is  easy,  sir, 
to  do  something,  but  the  object  is  to  do  something  useful.  It  is 
better  to  do  nothing  than  to  do  mischief.  It  is  much  better,  in  my 
opinion,  to  make  no  bank,  than  to  pass  the  bill  as  it  now  is. 

The  interests  to  be  affected  by  this  measure,  the  finances,  the 
public  credit,  and  the  circulating  medium  of  the  country  are  too 


226 

important  to  be  hazarded  in  schemes  like  these.  If  we  wish  to  re- 
store the  public  credit,  and  to  reestablish  the  finances,  we  have  the 
beaten  road  before  us.  All  true  analogy,  all  experience  and  all  just 
knowledge  of  ourselves  and  our  condition  point  one  way.  A  wise 
and  systematic  economy,  and  a  settled  and  substantial  revenue,  are 
the  means  to  be  relied  on;  not  excessive  issues  of  bank  notes,  a 
forced  circulation,  and  all  the  miserable  contrivances  to  which 
political  folly  can  resort,  with  the  idle  expectation  of  giving  to  mere 
paper  the  quality  of  money. 

These  are  all  the  inventions  of  a  shortsighted  policy,  vexed  and 
goaded  by  the  necessities  of  the  moment,  and  thinking  less  of  a 
permanent  remedy,  than  of  shifts  and  expedients  to  avoid  the  pre- 
sent distress.  They  have  been  a  thousand  times  adopted,  and  a 
thousand  times  exploded  as  delusive  and  ruinous,  as  destructive  of 
all  solid  revenue,  and  incompatible  with  the  security  of  private  pro- 
perty. 

It  is,  sir,  sufficiently  obvious,  that  to  produce  any  benefit,  this 
bank  must  be  so  constructed,  as  that  its  notes  shall  have  credit  with 
the  public.  The  first  inquiry,  therefore,  should  be,  whether  the 
bills  of  a  bank  of  this  kind  will  not  be  immediately  and  greatly 
depreciated.  I  think  they  will.  It  would  be  a  wonder  if  they 
should  not.  This  effect  will  be  produced  by  that  excessive  issue  of 
its  paper  which  the  bank  must  make  in  its  loan  to  government. 
Whether  its  issues  of  paper  are  excessive,  will  depend  not  on  the 
nominal  amount  of  its  capital,  but  on  its  ability  to  redeem  it.  This 
is  the  only  safe  criterion.  Very  special  cases  may  perhaps  furnish 
exceptions,  but  there  is,  in  general,  no  security  for  the  credit  of 
paper,  but  the  ability,  in  those  who  emit,  to  redeem  it.  Whenever 
bank  notes  are  not  convertible  into  gold  and  silver,  at  the  will  of  the 
holder,  they  become  of  less  value  than  gold  and  silver.  All  experi- 
ments on  this  subject  have  come  to  the  same  result.  It  is  so  clear, 
and  has  been  so  universally  admitted,  that  it  would  be  waste  of  time 
to  dwell  upon  it.  The  depreciation  may  not  be  sensibly  perceived 
the  first  day,  or  the  first  week,  it  takes  place.  It  will  first  be  dis- 
cerned in  what  is  called  the  rise  of  specie;  it  will  next  be  seen  in 
the  increased  price  of  all  commodities.  The  circulating  medium 
of  a  commercial  community,  must  be  that  which  is  also  the  circula- 
ting medium  of  other  commercial  communities,  or  must  be  capable 
of  being  converted  into  that  medium,  without  loss.  It  must  be  able, 
not  only  to  pass  in  payments  and  receipts,  among  individuals  of  the 
same  society  and  nation,  but  to  adjust  and  discharge  the  balance  of 
exchanges  between  different  nations.  It  must  be  something,  which 
has  a  value  abroad,  as  well  as  at  home,  and  by  which  foreign  as 
well  as  domestic  debts  can  be  satisfied.  The  precious  metals  alone 
answer  these  purposes.  They  alone,  therefore,  are  money,  and 
whatever  else  is  to  perform  the  offices  of  money,  must  be  their  rep- 
resentative, and  capable  of  being  turned  into  them  at  will.  So  long 
as  bank  paper  retains  this  quality,  it  is  a  substitute  for  money;  di- 
vested of  this,  nothing  can  give  it  that  character.  No  solidity  of 
funds,  no  sufficiency  of  assets,  no  confidence  in  the  solvency  of 
banking  institutions  has  ever  enabled  them  to  keep  up  their  paper 
to  the  value  of  gold  and  silver,  any  longer  than  they  paid  gold  and 


227 

silver  for  it,  on  demand.  This  will  continue  to  be  the  case  so  long 
as  those  metals  shall  continue  to  be  the  standard  of  value  and  the 
general  circulating  medium  among  nations. 

A  striking  illustration  of  this  common  principle  is  found  in  the 
early  history  of  the  bank  of  England.  In  the  year  1697,  it  had 
been  so  liberal  of  its  loans,  that  it  was  compelled  to  suspend  the  pay- 
ment of  its  notes.  Its  paper  immediately  fell  to  a  discount  of  near 
twenty  per  cent.  Yet  such  was  the  public  opinion  of  the  solidity  of 
its  funds,  that  its  stock  then  sold  for  one  hundred  and  ten  per  cent. 
although  no  more  than  sixty  per  cent,  upon  the  subscription  had  been 
paid  in. 

The  same  fate,  as  is  well  known,  attended  the  banks  of  Scotland, 
when  they  adopted  the  practice  of  inserting  in  their  notes  a  clause, 
giving  the  banks  an  option  of  paying  their  notes  on  demand,  or  six 
months  after  demand,  with  interest.  Paper  of  this  sort  was  not 
convertible  into  specie,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  holder;  and  no  con- 
viction of  the  ability  of  the  bank  which  issued  it,  could  preserve  it 
from  depreciation. 

The  suspension  of  specie  payments  by  the  bank  of  England, 
1797,  and  the  consequences  which  followed,  afford  no  argument  to 
overthrow  this  general  experience.  If  bank  of  England  notes  were 
not  immediately  depreciated,  on  that  occasion,  depreciation,  never- 
theless, did  ensue.  Very  favorable  causes  existed  to  prevent  their 
sudden  depression.  It  was  an  old  and  rich  institution.  It  was 
known  to  be  under  the  most  discreet  and  independent  management. 
Government  had  no  control  over  it,  to  force  it  to  make  loans,  against 
its  interest  or  its  will.  On  the  contrary,  it  compelled  the  government 
to  pay,  though  with  much  inconvenience  to  itself,  a  very  considera- 
ble sum,  which  was  due  to  it.  The  country  enjoyed,  at  that  time, 
an  extensive  commerce,  and  a  revenue  of  three  hundred  millions  of 
dollars  was  collected  and  distributed  through  the  bank.  Under  all 
these  advantages,  however,  the  difference  of  price  between  bank 
notes  and  coin  became  at  one  time  so  great,  as  to  threaten  the  most 
dangerous  consequences. 

Suppose  the  condition  of  England  to  have  been  reversed.  Sup- 
pose that  instead  of  a  prosperous  and  increasing  commerce,  she  had 
suffered  the  ruin  of  her  trade,  and  that  the  product  of  her  manufac- 
tures had  lain  upon  her  hands,  as  the  product  of  our  agriculture  now 
perishes  in  ours.  Does  any  one  imagine  that  her  circulating  paper 
could  have  existed  and  maintained  any  credit,  in  such  a  change  of 
her  condition  ?  What  ought  to  surprise  us  is  not  that  her  bank 
paper  was  depreciated,  but  that  it  was  not  depreciated  sooner  and 
lower  than  in  fact  it  was.  The  reason  can  only  be  found  in  that 
extraordinary  combination  of  favorable  circumstances,  which  never 
existed  before,  and  is  hardly  to  be  expected  again.  Much  less  is  it 
to  be  discovered  in  our  condition  at  present. 

But  we  have  experience  nearer  home.  The  paper  of  all  the  banks 
south  of  New  England,  has  become  depreciated  to  an  alarming  ex- 
tent. This  cannot  be  denied.  All  that  is  said  of  the  existence  of 
this  depreciation  remote  from  the  banks,  is  unfounded  and  idle.  It 
exists  everywhere.  The  rates  of  exchange,  both  foreign  and  do- 
mestic, puts  this  point  beyond  controversy.     If  a  bill  of  exchange 


228 

on  Europe  can  be  purchased,  as  it  may,  twenty  per  cent,  cheaper  in 
Boston  than  in  Baltimore,  the  reason  must  be  that  it  is  paid  for,  in 
Boston,  in  money,  and  in  Baltimore,  in  something  twenty  per  cent. 
Jess  valuable  than  money. 

Notwithstanding  the  depression  of  their  paper,  it  is  not  probable 
that  any  doubt  is  entertained  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  funds  of  the 
principal  banks.  Certainly  no  such  doubt  is  the  cause  of  the  fall  of 
their  paper;  because  the  depression  of  the  paper  of  all  the  banks  in 
any  place,  is,  as  far  as  I  learn,  generally  uniform  and  equal;  where- 
as if  public  opinion  proceeded  at  all  upon  the  adequacy  or  inadequa- 
cy of  their  funds,  it  would  necessarily  come  to  different  results,  in 
different  cases,  as  some  of  these  institutions  must  be  supposed  to 
be  richer  than  others. 

Sir,  something  must  be  discovered  which  has  hitherto  escaped 
the  observation  of  mankind,  before  you  can  give  to  paper,  intended 
for  circulation,  the  value  of  a  metallic  currency,  any  longer  than  it 
represents  that  currency,  and  is  convertible  into  it,  at  the  will  of 
the  holder. 

The  paper,  then,  of  this  bank,  if  you  make  it,  will  be  depreciated, 
for  the  same  reason  that  the  paper  of  other  banks  that  have  gone 
before  it,  and  of  those  which  now  exist  around  us  has  been  depreci- 
ated, because  it  is  not  to  pay  specie  for  its  notes. 

Other  institutions,  setting  out  perhaps  on  honest  principles,  have 
fallen  into  discredit,  through  mismanagement  or  misfortune.  But 
this  bank  is  to  begin  with  insolvency.  It  is  to  issue  its  bills  to  the 
amount  of  thirty  millions,  when  everybody  knows  it  cannot  pay 
them.  It  is  to  commence  its  existence  in  dishonor.  It  is  to  draw 
its  first  breath  in  disgrace.  The  promise  contained  in  the  first  note 
it  sends  forth,  is  to  be  a  false  promise,  and  whoever  receives  the 
note,  is  to  take  it,  with  the  knowledge  that  it  is  not  to  be  paid 
according  to  the  terms  of  it. 

But  this,  sir,  is  not  all.  The  framers  of  this  bill  have  not  done 
their  work  by  halves.  They  have  put  the  depreciation  of  the  notes 
of  their  bank  beyond  all  doubt  or  uncertainty.  They  have  made 
assurance  doubly  sure.  In  addition  to  excessive  issues  of  paper, 
and  the  failure  to  make  payments,  both  which  they  provide  for  by 
law,  they  make  the  capital  of  the  bank,  to  consist  principally  of 
public  stock. 

If  this  stock  should  be  sold  as  in  the  former  bank  of  the  United 
States,  the  evil  would  be  less.  But  the  bank  has  not  the  power  to 
sell  it,  and  for  all  purposes  of  enabling  it  to  fulfil  its  engagements, 
its  funds  might  as  well  be  at  the  bottom  of  the  ocean,  as  in  govern- 
ment stocks,  of  which  it  cannot  enforce  payment,  and  of  which  it 
cannot  dispose. 

The  credit  of  this  institution  is  to  be  founded  on  public  funds,  not 
on  private  property,  or  commercial  credit.  It  is  to  be  a  financial 
not  a  commercial  bank.  Its  credit  can  hardly,  therefore,  be  better 
at  any  time  than  the  credit  of  the  government.  If  the  stocks  be 
depreciated,  so  of  course  must  everything  be  which  rests  on  the 
stocks. 

It  would  require  extraordinary  ingenuity  to  show  how  a  bank, 
which  is  founded  on  the  public  debt,  is  to  have  any  better  reputation 


229 

than  the  debt  itself.  It  must  be  some  very  novel  invention,  which 
makes  the  superstructure  keep  its  place,  after  the  foundation  has 
fallen.  The  argument  seems  to  stand  thus:  The  public  funds,  it  is 
admitted,  have  little  credit;  the  bank  will  have  no  credit  which  it 
does  not  borrow  of  the  funds;  but  the  bank  will  be  in  full  credit. 

If,  sir,  we  were  in  a  temper  to  learn  wisdom  from  experience,  the 
history  of  most  of  the  banks  on  the  continent  of  Europe  might  teach 
us  the  futility  of  all  these  contrivances.  Those  were,  like  this  be- 
fore us,  established  for  the  purposes  of  finance,  not  purposes  of 
commerce.  The  same  fortune  has  happened  to  them  all.  Their 
credit  has  sunk.  Their  respective  governments  go  to  them  for 
money  when  they  can  get  it  nowhere  else;  and  the  banks  can  relieve 
their  wants,  only  by  new  issues  of  their  own  paper.  As  this  is  not 
redeemed,  the  invariable  consequence  of  depreciation  follows;  and 
this  has  sometimes  led  to  the  miserable  and  destructive  expedient 
of  depreciation  of  the  coin  itself. 

Such  are  the  banks  of  Petersburg,  Copenhagen,  Vienna,  and 
other  cities  of  Europe;  and  while  the  paper  of  these  government 
banks  has  been  thus  depressed,  that  of  other  banks  existing  in  their 
neighbourhood,  unconnected  with  government,  and  conducting  their 
business  on  the  basis  of  commercial  credit,  has  retained  a  value 
equivalent  to  that  of  coin. 

Excessive  issues  of  paper  and  a  close  connexion  with  government, 
are  the  circumstances  which  of  all  others  are  the  most  certain  to 
destroy  the  credit  of  bank  paper.  If  there  were  no  excessive  issues, 
or,  in  other  words,  if  the  bank  paid  its  notes  in  specie,  on  demand, 
its  connexion  with  government  and  its  interest  in  the  funds  would 
not,  perhaps,  materially  affect  the  circulation  of  its  paper,  although 
they  would  naturally  diminish  the  value  of  its  stock.  But  when 
these  two  circumstances  exist  in  the  condition  of  any  bank,  that  it 
does  not  pay  its  notes  and  that  its  funds  are  in  public  stocks,  and  all 
its  operations  intimately  blended  with  the  operations  of  government, 
nothing  further  need  be  known,  to  be  quite  sure  that  its  paper  will 
not  answer  the  purpose  of  a  creditable  circulating  medium. 

I  look  upon  it,  therefore,  sir,  as  certain,  that  a  very  considerable 
discount  will  attach  itself  to  the  notes  of  this  bank,  the  first  day  of 
their  appearance;  that  this  discount  will  continue  to  increase;  and 
unless  Congress  should  be  able  to  furnish  some  remedy,  which  is 
not  certain,  the  paper,  in  the  end,  will  be  worth  nothing.  If  this 
happens,  not  only  will  no  one  of  the  benefits  proposed  be  obtained, 
but  evils  of  the  most  alarming  magnitude  will  follow.  All  the  hor- 
rors of  a  paper-money  system  are  before  us.  If  we  venture  on  the 
present  expedient,  we  shall  hardly  be  able  to  avoid  them.  The  ruin 
of  public  affairs  and  the  wreck  of  private  property  will  ensue. 

I  would  ask,  sir,  whether  the  friends  of  this  measure  have  well 
considered  what  effect  it  will  produce  on  the  revenue  of  the  coun- 
try ?  By  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  the  notes  of  this  bank  are  to  be 
received  in  payment  of  all  taxes  and  other  dues  to  government. 
They  cannot  be  refused  on  account  of  the  depreciation  of  their  val- 
ue. Government  binds  itself  to  receive  them  at  par;  although  it 
should  be  obliged  immediately  to  pay  them  out,  at  a  discount  of  a 
hundred  per  cent.     It  is  certain,  then,  that  a  loss  in  the  revenue  will 

u 


230 

be  sustained,  equal  to  any  depreciation  which  may  take  place  in  this 
paper;  and  when  the  paper  shall  come  to  nothing,  the  revenue  of 
the  country  will  come  to  nothing  along  with  it.  This  has  happened 
to  other  countries,  where  this  wretched  system  has  been  adopted, 
and  it  will  happen  here. 

The  Austrian  government  resorted  to  a  similar  experiment,  in 
a  very  critical  period  of  its  affairs,  in  1809,  the  year  of  the  last 
campaign  between  that  country  and  France,  previous  to  the  coali- 
tion. Pressed  by  the  necessities  of  the  occasion,  the  government 
caused  a  large  quantity  of  paper  to  be  issued,  which  was  to  be  re- 
ceived in  imposts  and  taxes.  The  paper  immediately  fell  to  a 
depreciation  of  four  for  one.  The  consequence  was,  that  the  gov- 
ernment lost  its  revenue,  and,  with  it,  the  means  of  supplying  its 
armies  and  defending  its  empire. 

Is  this  government  now  ready,  sir,  to  put  its  resources  all  at  haz- 
ard, by  pursuing  a  similar  course  ?  Is  it  ready  to  sacrifice  its  whole 
substantial  revenue  and  permanent  supplies  to  an  ill-contrived,  ill- 
considered,  dangerous  and  ruinous  project,  adopted  only  as  the 
means  of  obtaining  a  little  present  and  momentary  relief? 

It  ought  to  be  considered,  also,  what  effects  this  bank  will  produce 
on  other  banking  institutions  already  existing,  and  on  the  paper 
which  they  have  issued.  The  aggregate  capital  of  these  institu- 
tions is  large.  The  amount  of  their  notes  is  large,  and  these  notes 
constitute,  at  present,  in  a  great  portion  of  the  country,  the  only 
circulating  medium,  if  they  can  be  called  a  circulating  medium. 
Whatever  affects  this  paper,  either  to  raise  it,  or  depress  it  lower 
than  it  is,  affects  the  interests  of  every  man  in  the  community. 

It  is  sufficient  on  this  point  to  refer  to  the  memorial  from  the  banks 
of  New  York.  That  assures  us  that  it  must  be  the  operation  of 
such  a  bank,  as  this  bill  would  establish,  to  increase  the  difficulties 
and  distress,  which  the  existing  banks  now  experience,  and  to  ren- 
der it  nearly  impossible  for  them  to  resume  the  payment  of  their 
notes.  This  is  what  every  man  would  naturally  expect.  Paper 
already  depreciated,  will  necessarily  be  sunk  still  lower,  when  anoth- 
er flood  of  depreciated  paper  is  forced  into  circulation. 

Very  recently  this  government  refused  to  extend  the  charter  of 
the  bank  of  the  United  States,  upon  the  ground,  that  it  was  uncon- 
stitutional for  Congress  to  create  banks.  Many  of  the  state  banks 
owe  their  existence  to  this  decision.  It  was  an  invitation  to  the 
states  to  incorporate  as  much  banking  capital  as  would  answer  all 
the  purposes  of  the  country.  Notwithstanding  what  we  may  now 
see  and  hear,  it  would  then  have  been  deemed  a  gross  imputation 
on  the  consistency  of  government,  if  any  man  had  expressed  an 
expectation,  that  in  five  years  all  these  constitutional  scruples  would 
be  forgotten,  all  the  dangers  to  political  liberty  from  moneyed  institu- 
tions disregarded,  and  a  bank  proposed  upon  the  most  extraordinary 
principles,  with  an  unprecedented  amount  of  capital,  and  with  no 
obligation  to  fulfil  its  contracts. 

The  state  banks  have  not  forced  themselves  in  the  way  of  gov- 
ernment. They  were  established,  many  of  them  at  least,  when 
government  had  declared  its  purpose  to  have  no  bank  of  its  own. 
They  deserve  some  regard  on  their  own  account,  and  on  account  of 


231 

those  particularly  concerned  in  them.  But  they  deserve  much  more 
consideration,  on  account  of  the  quantity  of  paper  which  is  in  cir- 
culation, and  the  interest  which  the  whole  community  has  in  it. 

Let  it  be  recollected  also,  sir,  that  the  present  condition  of  the 
banks  is  principally  owing  to  their  advances  to  government.  The 
treasury  has  borrowed  of  the  banks,  or  of  those  who  themselves 
borrowed  of  the  banks,  till  the  banks  have  become  as  poor,  and  al- 
most as  much  discredited,  as  the  treasury  itself.  They  have  de- 
preciated their  paper,  nearly  ruined  themselves,  and  brought  the 
sorest  distress  on  the  country,  by  doing  that  on  a  small  scale, 
which  this  bank  is  to  perform  on  a  scale  vastly  larger. 

It  is  almost  unpardonable  in  the  conductors  of  these  institutions, 
not  to  have  foreseen  the  consequences  which  have  resulted  from 
the  course  pursued  by  them.  They  were  all  plain  and  visible.  If 
they  have  any  apology,  it  is,  that  they  were  no  blinder  than  the 
government,  and  that  they  yielded  to  those  who  would  take  no  de- 
nial. It  will  be  altogether  unpardonable  in  us,  if  with  this,  as  well 
as  all  other  experience  before  us,  we  continue  to  pursue  a  system 
which  must  inevitably  lead  us  through  depreciation  of  currency, 
paper-money,  tender-laws,  and  all  the  contemptible  and  miserable 
contrivances  of  disordered  finance  and  national  insolvency,  to  com- 
plete and  entire  bankruptcy  in  the  end. 

I  hope  the  House  will  recommit  the  bill  for  amendment. 


SPEECH 


ON  A  RESOLUTION  RELATIVE  TO  THE  MORE  EFFECTUAL  COLLEC- 
TION OF  THE  PUBLIC  REVENUE,  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF 
REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  1816. 


The  disordered  state,  in  which  the  Currency  of  the  country  was  left  by  the  late  war,  is 
well  known.  With  a  view  to  correct  the  evil,  Mr.  Webster  moved  the  following  Resolution, 
in  the  House  of  Representatives.  It  passed  both  Houses,  and  was  attended  with  complete 
success,  in  its  operation. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  Treasury  be,  and  he  hereby  is, 
required  and  directed  to  adopt  such  measures  as  he  may  deem  necessary,  to  cause,  as  soon 
as  may  be,  all  duties,  taxes,  debts,  or  sums  of  money,  accruing  or  becoming  payable  to  the 
United  States,  to  be  collected  and  paid  in  the  legal  currency  of  the  United  States,  or  Treas- 
ury notes,  or  notes  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  as  by  law  provided  and  declared,  or 
in  notes  of  Banks  which  are  payable  and  paid  on  demand,  in  the  said  legal  currency  of  the 
United  States;  and  that,  from  and  after  the  twentieth  day  of  February  next,  no  such  duties, 
taxes,  debts,  or  sums  of  money,  accruing  or  becoming  payable  to  the  United  States,  as 
aforesaid,  ought  to  be  collected  or  received  otherwise  than  in  the  legal  currency  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  or  Treasury  notes,  or  notes  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  State,  or  in  notes  of  Banks 
which  are  payable  and  paid  on  demand,  in  the  said  legal  currency  of  the  United  States. — 
Approved,  April  30,  1816. 

The  Resolution  was  introduced  by  the  following  Speech. 

Mr.  Webster  said,  that  he  had  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  House  once  more  to  the  subject  of  the  collection 
of  the  revenue,  and  to  present  the  resolutions  which  had  been  sub- 
mitted. He  had  been  the  more  inclined  to  do  this  from  an  appre- 
hension that  the  rejection,  yesterday,  of  the  bill  which  had  been  in- 
troduced, might  be  construed  into  an  abandonment,  on  the  part  of 
the  House,  of  all  hope  of  remedying  the  existing  evil.  He  had  had, 
it  was  true,  some  objections  against  proceeding  by  way  of  bill  ;  be- 
cause the  case  was  notg  one  in  which  the  law  was  deficient,  but  one 
in  which  the  execution  of  the  law  was  deficient.  The  great  object, 
however,  was  to  obtain  a  decision  of  this  and  the  other  House,  that 
the  present  mode  of  receiving  the  revenue  should  not  be  continued; 
and  as  this  might  be  substantially  effected  by  the  bill,  he  had  hoped 
that  it  might  pass.  This  hope  had  been  disappointed.  The  bill  had 
been  rejected.     The  House  had  put  its  negative  upon  the  only  propo- 


233 

sition  which  had  been  submitted  to  it,  for  correcting  a  state  of  things, 
which  everybody  knows  to  exist  in  plain  violation  of  the  constitu- 
tion, and  in  open  defiance  of  the  written  letter  of  the  law.  For  one, 
he  could  never  consent  to  adjourn,  leaving  this  implied  sanction  of 
the  House  upon  all  that  had  taken  place,  and  all  that  might  hereafter 
take  place.  He  hoped  not  to  hear  again  that  there  was  not  now 
time  to  act  on  this  question.  If  other  gentlemen  considered  the 
question  as  important  as  he  did,  they  would  not  forbear  to  act  on 
it  from  any  desire,  however  strong,  to  bring  the  session  to  an  early 
close. 

The  situation  of  the  country,  said  Mr.  Webster,  in  regard  to  col- 
lection of  its  revenues  is  most  deplorable.  With  a  perfectly  sound 
legal  currency,  the  national  revenues  are  not  collected  in  this  cur- 
rency, but  in  paper  of  various  sorts,  and  various  degrees  of  value. 
The  origin  and  progress  of  this  evil  is  distinctly  known,  but  it  is 
not  easy  to  see  its  duration  or  its  future  extent,  if  an  adequate  rem- 
edy be  not  soon  found.  Before  the  war,  the  business  of  the  country 
was  conducted  principally  by  means  of  the  paper  of  the  different 
state  banks.  As  these  were  in  good  credit,  and  paid  their  notes  in 
gold  and  silver  on  demand,  no  great  evil  was  experienced  from  the 
circulation  of  their  paper.  Not  being,  however,  a  part  of  the  legal 
money  of  the  country,  it  could  not,  by  law,  be  received  in  the  pay- 
ment of  duties,  taxes  or  other  debts  to  government.  But  being 
payable,  and  hitherto,  regularly  paid,  on  demand,  the  collectors  and 
agents  of  government  had  generally  received  it  as  cash;  it  had  been 
deposited  as  cash  in  the  banks  which  received  the  deposits  of  gov- 
ernment, and  from  them  it  had  been  drawn  as  cash,  and  paid  off  to 
creditors  of  the  public. 

During  the  war,  this  state  of  things  changed.  Many  of  the  banks 
had  been  induced  to  make  loans  to  a  very  great  amount  to  govern- 
ment. These  loans  were  made  by  an  issue  of  their  own  bills.  This 
proceeding  threw  into  circulation  an  immense  quantity  of  bank  pa- 
per, in  no  degree  corresponding  with  the  mercantile  business  of  the 
country,  and  resting  on  nothing  for  its  payment  and  redemption,  but 
the  government  stocks,  which  were  holden  by  the  banks.  The  con- 
sequence immediately  followed,  which  it  would  be  imputing  a  great 
degree  of  blindness  both  to  the  government  and  to  the  banks  to  sug- 
gest that  they  had  not  foreseen.  The  excess  of  paper  which  was 
found  everywhere,  created  alarm.  Demands  began  to  be  made  on 
the  banks,  and  they  all  stopped  payment.  No  contrivance  to  get 
money  without  inconvenience  to  the  people,  ever  had  a  shorter 
course  of  experiment,  or  a  more  unequivocal  termination.  The 
depreciation  of  bank  notes  was  the  necessary  consequence  of  a 
neglect  or  refusal  on  the  part  of  those  who  issued  them  to  pay  them. 
It  took  place  immediately,  and  has  continued,  with  occasional  fluc- 
tuations in  the  depression,  to  the  present  moment.  What  still  far- 
ther increases  the  evil  is,  that  this  bank  paper  being  the  issue  of 
very  many  institutions,  situated  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  and 
possessing  different  degrees  of  credit,  the  depreciation  has  not  been, 
and  is  not  now,  uniform  throughout  the  United  States.  It  is  not 
the  same  at  Baltimore  as  at  Philadelphia,  nor  the  same  at  Philadel- 
phia as  at  New  York.  In  New  England,  the  banks  have  not  stop- 
30  .  u* 


234 

ped  payment  in  specie,  and  of  course  their  paper  has  not  been  de- 
pressed at  all.  But  the  notes  of  banks  which  have  ceased  to  pay- 
specie,  have,  nevertheless,  been,  and  still  are,  received  for  duties 
and  taxes,  in  the  places  where  such  banks  exist.  The  consequence 
of  all  this  is,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  pay  their  duties 
and  taxes  in  currencies  of  different  values,  in  different  places.  In 
other  words,  taxes  and  duties  are  higher  in  some  places  than  they 
are  in  others,  by  as  much  as  the  value  of  gold  and  silver  is  greater  than 
the  value  of  the  several  descriptions  of  bank  paper  which  are  re- 
ceived by  government.  This  difference  in  relation  to  the  paper  of 
the  District  where  we  now  are,  is  twenty-five  per  cent.  Taxes  and 
duties,  therefore,  collected  in  Massachusetts,  are  one  quarter  higher 
than  the  taxes  and  duties  which  are  collected,  by  virtue  of  the  same 
laws,  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

By  the  constitution  of  the  government,  it  is  certain  that  all  duties, 
taxes  and  excises  ought  to  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States; 
and  that  no  preference  should  be  given,  by  any  regulation  of  com- 
merce or  revenue,  to  the  ports  of  one  state  over  those  of  another. 
This  constitutional  provision,  it  is  obvious,  is  flagrantly  violated. 
Duties  and  taxes  are  not  uniform.  They  are  higher  in  some  places 
than  in  others.  A  citizen  of  New  England  pays  his  taxes  in  gold 
and  silver,  or  their  equivalent.  From  his  hand  the  collector  will 
not  receive,  and  is  instructed  by  government  not  to  receive,  the 
notes  of  the  banks  which  do  not  pay  their  notes  on  demand,  and 
which  notes  he  could  obtain  twenty  or  twenty-five  per  cent,  cheaper 
than  that  which  is  demanded  of  him.  Yet  a  citizen  of  the  mid- 
dle states  pays  his  taxes  in  these  notes  at  par.  Can  a  great- 
er injustice  than  this  be  conceived  ?  Can  constitutional  provisions 
be  disregarded  in  a  more  essential  point  ?  Commercial  preferences 
also  are  given,  which,  if  they  could  be  continued,  would  be  sufficient 
to  annihilate  the  commerce  of  some  cities  and  some  states,  while 
they  would  extremely  promote  that  of  others.  The  importing  mer- 
chant of  Boston  pays  the  duties  upon  his  goods,  either  in  specie  or 
cash  notes,  which  are  at  least  twenty  per  cent,  or  in  treasury  notes 
which  are  ten  per  cent,  more  valuable  than  the  notes  which  are  paid 
for  duties,  at  par,  by  the  importing  merchant  at  Baltimore.  Surely 
this  is  not  to  be  endured.  Such  monstrous  inequality  and  injustice 
are  not  to  be  tolerated.  Since  the  commencement  of  this  course 
of  things,  it  can  be  shown,  that  the  people  of  the  northern  states 
have  paid  a  million  of  dollars  more  than  their  just  proportion  of  the 
public  burdens.  A  similar  inequality,  though  somewhat  less  in  de- 
gree, has  fallen  upon  the  states  south  of  the  Potomac,  in  which  the 
paper  in  circulation,  although  not  equivalent  to  specie,  is  yet  of 
higher  value  than  the  bank  notes  of  this  District,  Maryland  and  the 
middle  states. 

But  it  is  not  merely  the  inequality  and  injustice  of  this  system, 
if  system  it  may  be  called,  if  not  rather  the  want  of  all  system,  that 
call  for  reform.  It  throws  the  whole  revenue  into  derangement,  and 
endless  confusion.  It  prevents  the  possibility  of  order,  method  or 
certainty  in  the  public  receipts  or  disbursements.  This  mass  of  de- 
pressed paper,  thrown  out  at  first  in  loans  to  accommodate  govern- 
ment, has  done  little  else  than  to  embarrass  and  distress  government 


235 

It  can  hardly  be  said  to  circulate,  but  it  lies  in  the  channel  of  circula- 
tion, and  chokes  it  up  by  its  bulk  and  its  sluggishness.  In  a  great 
proportion  of  the  country,  the  dues  are  not  paid,  or  are  badly  paid; 
and  in  an  equal  portion  of  the  country  the  public  creditors  are  not 
paid,  or  are  paid  badly. 

It  is  quite  clear,  that  by  the  statute  all  duties  and  taxes  are  re- 
quired to  be  paid  in  the  legal  money  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
treasury  notes,  agreeably  to  recent  provisions.  It  is  just  as  clear, 
that  the  law  has  been  disregarded,  and  that  the  notes  of  banks  of 
an  hundred  different  descriptions,  and  almost  as  many  different  val- 
ues, have  been  received,  and  still  are  received,  where  the  statute 
requires  legal  money  or  treasury  notes  to  be  paid. 

In  these  circumstances,  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  congress 
will  adjourn,  without  attempting  something  by  way  of  remedy.  In 
my  opinion,  no  greater  evil  has  threatened  us.  Nothing  can  more 
endanger,  either  the  existence  and  preservation  of  the  public  reve- 
nue, or  the  security  of  private  property,  than,  the  consequences 
which  are  to  be  apprehended  from  the  present  course  of  things,  if 
they  be  not  arrested  by  a  timely  and  an  effectual  interference.  Let 
gentlemen  consider  what  will  probably  happen,  if v  congress  should 
rise  without  the  adoption  of  any  measure  on  the  subject. 

Virginia,  having  passed  a  law  for  compelling  the  banks  in  that 
state  to  limit  the  circulation  of  their  paper  and  resume  specie  pay- 
ments by  the  autumn,  will,  doubtless,  repeal  it.  The  states  further 
to  the  south  will  probably  fall  into  a  similar  relaxation,  for  it  is  hard- 
ly to  be  expected  that  they  will  have  firmness  and  perseverance 
enough,  to  persist  in  their  present  most  prudent  and  commendable 
course,  without  the  countenance  of  the  general  government. 

If  in  addition  to  these  events,  an  abandonment  of  the  wholesome 
system,  which  has  thus  far  prevailed  in  the  northern  states,  or  any 
relaxation  of  that  system  should  take  place,  the  government  is  in 
danger  of  falling  into  that  condition,  from  which  it  can  hardly  be 
able  to  extricate  itself  for  twenty  years,  if  indeed  it  shall  ever  be 
able  to  extricate  itself;  and  if  that  state  of  things,  instead  of  being 
changed  by  the  government,  shall  not  change  the  government. 

It  is  our  business  to  foresee  this  danger,  and  to  avoid  it.  There 
are  some  political  evils  which  are  seen  as  soon  as  they  are  dangerous, 
and  which  alarm  at  once  as  well  the  people  as  the  government.  Wars 
and  invasions  therefore  are  not  always  the  most  certain  destroyers 
of  national  prosperity.  They  come  in  no  questionable  shape.  They 
announce  their  own  approach,  and  the  general  security  is  preserved 
by  the  general  alarm.  Not  so  with  the  evils  of  a  debased  coin,  a 
depreciated  paper  currency,  or  a  depressed  and  falling  public  credit. 
Not  so  with  the  plausible  and  insidious  mischiefs  of  a  paper  money 
system.  These  insinuate  themselves  in  the  shape  of  facilities,  ac- 
commodation, and  relief.  They  hold  out  the  most  fallacious  hope  of 
an  easy  payment  of  debts,  and  a  lighter  burden  of  taxation.  It  is 
easy  for  a  portion  of  the  people  to  imagine  that  government  may 
properly  continue  to  receive  depreciated  paper,  because  they  have 
received  it,  and  because  it  is  more  convenient  to  obtain  it  than  to  ob- 
tain other  paper,  or  specie.  But  on  these  subjects  it  is,  that  govern- 
ment ought  to  exercise  its  own  peculiar  wisdom  and  caution.     It  is 


236 

supposed  to  possess  on  subjects  of  this  nature,  somewhat  more  of 
foresight  than  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  individuals.  It  is  bound  to 
foresee  the  evil  before  every  man  feels  it,  and  to  take  all  necessary 
measures  to  guard  against  it,  although  they  may  be  measures  at- 
tended with  some  difficulty  and  not  without  temporary  inconvenience. 
In  my  humble  judgment,  the  evil  demands  the  immediate  attention 
of  congress.  It  is  not  certain,  and  in  my  opinion  not  probable,  that 
it  will  ever  cure  itself.  It  is  more  likely  to  grow  by  indulgence, 
while  the  remedy  which  must  in  the  end  be  applied,  will  become 
less  efficacious  by  delay. 

The  only  power  which  the  general  government  possesses  of  restrain- 
ing, the  issues  of  the  state  banks,  is  to  refuse  their  notes  in  the  receipts 
of  the  treasury.  This  power  it  can  exercise  now,  or  at  least  it  can 
provide  now  for  exercising  in  reasonable  time,  because  the  currency 
of  some  part  of  the  country  is  yet  sound,  and  the  evil  is  not  univer- 
sal. If  it  should  become  universal,  who,  that  hesitates  now,  will 
then  propose  any  adequate  means  of  relief?  If  a  measure,  like  the 
bill  of  yesterday,  or  the  resolutions  of  to  day,  can  hardly  pass  here 
now,  what  hope  is  there  that  any  efficient  measure  will  be  adopted 
hereafter  ? 

The  conduct  of  the  treasury  department  in  receiving  the  notes  of 
the  banks,  after  they  had  suspended  payment,  might,  or  might  not, 
have  been  excused  by  the  necessity  of  the  case.  That  is  not  now 
the  subject  of  inquiry.  I  wish  such  inquiry  had  been  instituted. 
It  ought  to  have  been.  It  is  of  dangerous  consequence  to  permit 
plain  omissions  to  execute  the  law  to  pass  off,  under  any  circumstance, 
without  inquiry.  It  would  probably  be  easier  to  prove,  that  the 
treasury  must  have  continued  to  receive  such  notes,  or  that  all  pay- 
ments to  government  would  have  been  suspended,  than  it  would  be  to 
justify  the  previous  negotiations  of  great  loans  at  the  banks,  which 
was  a  voluntary  transaction,  induced  by  no  particular  necessity,  and 
which  is  nevertheless,  beyond  doubt,  the  principal  cause  of  their 
present  condition.  But  I  have  expressed  my  belief  on  more  than 
one  occasion,  and  I  repeat  the  opinion,  that  it  was  the  duty,  and  in 
the  power  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  on  the  return  of  peace,  to 
have  returned  to  the  legal  and  proper  mode  of  collecting  the  revenue. 
The  paper  of  the  banks,  rose,  on  that  occasion,  almost  to  an  equality 
with  specie;  that  was  the  favorable  moment.  The  banks  in  which 
the  public  money  was  deposited  ought  to  have  been  induced  to  lead 
the  way,  by  the  sale  of  their  government  stocks,  and  other  measures 
calculated  to  bring  about,  moderately  and  gradually,  but  regularly  and 
certainly,  the  restoration  of  the  former  and  only  safe  state  of  things. 
It  can  hardly  be  doubted,  that  the  influence  of  the  treasury  could 
have  effected  all  this.  If  not,  it  could  have  withdrawn  the  deposits 
and  countenance  of  government  from  institutions,  which,  against  all 
rule  and  all  propriety,  were  holding  great  sums  in  government  stocks, 
and  making  enormous  profits  from  the  circulation  of  their  own  dishon- 
ored paper.  That  which  was  most  wanted,  was  the  designation  of  a 
time,  for  the  corresponding  operation  of  banks  in  different  places. 
This  could  have  been  made  by  the  head  of  the  treasury,  better  than 
by  anybody  or  everybody  else.  But  the  occasion  was  suffered  to 
pass  by  unimproved,   and  the  credit  of  the  banks  soon  fell  again, 


237 

when  it  was  found  they  used  none  of  the  means  which  the  opportu- 
nity gave  themselves  for  enabling  them  to  fulfil  their  engagements. 

As  to  any  power  of  compulsion  to  be  exercised  over  the  state 
banks,  they  are  not  subject  to  the  direct  control  of  general  govern- 
ment. It  is  for  the  state  authorities  which  created  them  to  decide, 
whether  they  have  acted  according  to  their  charters,  and  if  not,  what 
shall  be  the  remedy  for  their  irregularities.  But  from  such  of  them 
as  continued  to  receive  deposits  of  public  money,  government  had 
a  right  to  expect  that  they  would  conduct  their  concerns  according 
to  the  safe  and  well  known  principles  which  should  properly  gov- 
ern such  institutions.  It  is  bound  also  to  collect  its  taxes  of  the 
people  on  a  uniform  system.  These  rights  and  these  duties  are  too 
important  to  be  surrendered  to  the  accommodation  of  any  particular 
interest  or  any  temporary  purpose. 

The  resolutions  before  the  House  take  no  notice  of  the  state  banks. 
They  express  neither  praise  nor  censure  of  them.  They  neither 
commend  for  their  patriotism  in  the  loans  made  to  government,  nor 
propose  to  tax  them  for  their  neglect  or  refusal  to  pay  their  debts. 
They  assume  no  power  of  interfering  with  these  institutions.  They 
say  not  one  word  about  compelling  them  to  resume  their  payments; 
they  leave  that  to  the  consideration  of  the  banks  themselves,  or  to 
those  who  have  a  right  to  call  them  to  account  for  any  misconduct  in 
that  respect.  But  the  resolutions  declare  that  taxes  ought  to  be 
equal;  that  preferences  ought  not  to  be  given;  that  the  revenues 
of  the  country  ought  not  to  be  diminished  in  amount,  nor  hazarded 
altogether  by  the  receipt  of  varying  and  uncertain  paper;  and  that 
the  present  state  of  things,  in  which  all  these  unconstitutional,  ille- 
gal and  dangerous  ingredients  are  mixed,  ought  not  to  exist. 

It  has  been  said  that  these  resolutions  may  be  construed  into  a 
justification  of  the  past  conduct  of  the  treasury  department.  Such 
an  objection  has  been  anticipated.  It  was  made,  in  my  opinion, 
with  much  more  justice  to  the  bill  rejected  yesterday,  and  a  provis- 
ion was  accordingly  subsequently  introduced  into  that  bill  to  exclude 
such  an  interference.  This  is  certainly  not  the  time  to  express  any 
justification  or  approbation  of  the  conduct  of  that  department  on 
this  subject,  and  I  trust  these  resolutions  do  not  imply  it — Nor  do 
the  resolutions  propose  to  express  any  censure.  A  sufficient  rea- 
son for  declining  to  do  either,  is,  that  the  facts  are  not  sufficiently 
known.  What  loss  has  actually  happened,  what  amount,  it  is  said 
to  be  large,  may  be  now  in  the  treasury,  in  notes  which  will  not 
pass,  or  under  what  circumstances  these  were  received,  is  not  now 
sufficiently  ascertained. 

But  before  these  resolutions  are  rejected,  on  the  ground  that  they 
may  shield  the  treasury  department  from  responsibility,  it  ought  to 
be  clearly  shown  that  they  are  capable  of  such  a  construction 
The  mere  passing  of  any  resolution  cannot  have  that  effect.  A  dec- 
laration of  what  ought  to  be  done,  does  not  necessarily  imply  any 
sanction  of  what  has  been  done.  It  may  sometimes  imply  the  con- 
trary. These  resolutions  cannot  be  made  to  imply  any  more  than 
this,  that  the  financial  affairs  of  the  country  are  in  such  a  condition, 
that  the  revenue  cannot  be  instantly  collected  in  legal  currency. 
This  they  do  imply,  and  this  I  suppose  almost  all  admit  to  be  true, 


238 

An  instantaneous  execution  of  the  law,  without  warning  or  notice, 
could  in  my  opinion  produce  nothing  in  a  portion  of  the  country, 
but  an  entire  suspension  of  payments. 

But  to  whose  fault  it  is  owing,  that  the  affairs  of  the  country  are 
reduced  to  this  condition,  they  do  not  declare.  They  do  not  pre- 
vent, or  in  any  degree  embarrass,  future  inquiry  on  that  subject. 
They  speak  to  the  fact,  that  the  finances  are  deranged.  They  say, 
also,  that  reformation,  though  it  must  be  gradual,  ought  to  be  imme- 
diately begun,  and  to  be  carried  to  perfection  in  the  shortest  time  prac- 
ticable. They  cannot  by  any  fair  construction,  be  made  to  express 
the  approbation  of  congress  on  the  past  conduct  of  any  high  officer 
of  government;  and  if  the  time  shall  ever  come,  when  this  House 
shall  deem  investigation  necessary,  it  must  be  a  case  of  very  un- 
promising aspect,  and  of  most  fearful  issue,  which  shall  afford  no 
other  hope  of  escape  than  by  setting  up  these  resolutions  by  way  of 
bar  to  an  inquiry. 

Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  this  measure  that  inquiry  has  not  first 
been  had.  Two  duties  may  be  supposed  to  have  rested  on  the  House : 
the  one,  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  the  evil,  if  it  needed  inquiry, 
and  the  other  to  find  and  apply  the  remedy.  Because  one  of  these 
duties  has  not  hitherto  been  discharged,  is  no  reason  why  the  other 
should  be  longer  neglected.  While  we  are  deciding  which  to  do  first, 
the  time  of  the  session  is  going  by  us,  and  neither  may  be  done. 
In  the  meantime  public  mischiefs,  of  unknown  magnitude  and  in- 
calculable duration,  threaten  the  country.  I  see  no  equivalent,  no 
consolation,  no  mitigation,  for  these  evils,  in  the  future  responsibili- 
ty of  departments.  Let  gentlemen  show  me  any  responsibility  which 
will  not  be  a  name  and  a  mockery.  If,  when  we  meet  here  again, 
it  shall  be  found  that  all  the  barriers  which  have  hitherto,  in  any 
degree,  restrained  the  emissions  of  a  mere  paper  money  of  the  worst 
sort,  have  given  way,  and  that  the  floods  have  broken  in  upon  us  and 
come  over  us :  if  it  shall  be  found  that  revenues  have  failed — that 
the  public  credit,  now  a  little  propped  and  supported  by  a  state  of 
peace  and  commerce,  has  again  tottered  and  fallen  to  the  ground, 
and  that  all  the  operations  of  government  are  at  a  stand,  what  then 
will  be  the  value  of  the  responsibility  of  departments?  How  great 
then  the  value  of  inquiry,  when  the  evil  is  past  prevention,  when  of- 
ficers may  have  gone  out  of  place,  and  when,  indeed,  the  whole  ad- 
ministration will  necessarily  be  dissolving,  by  the  expiration  of  the 
term  for  which  the  chief  executive  magistrate  was  chosen? 

I  cannot  consent  to  take  the  chance  of  the  greatest  public  mis- 
chiefs upon  a  reliance  on  any  such  responsibility.  The  stakes  are 
too  unequal. 

As  to  the  opinion  advanced  by  some,  that  the  object,  of  the  reso- 
lution cannot,  in  any  way,  be  answered — that  the  revenues  cannot  be 
collected,  otherwise  than  as  they  are  now,  in  the  paper  of  any  and 
every  banking  association  which  chooses  to  issue  paper,  it  cannot 
for  a  moment  be  admitted.  This  would  be  at  once  giving  up  the 
government;  for  what  is  government  without  revenue,  and  what  is  a 
revenue  that  is  gathered  together  in  the  varying,  fluctuating,  dis- 
credited, depreciated,  and  still  falling  promissory  notes  of  two  or  three 
hundred  distinct,  and,  as  to  this  government,  irresponsible  banking 


239 

companies.  If  it  cannot  collect  its  revenues  in  a  better  manner  than 
this,  it  must  cease  to  be  a  government.  This  thing  therefore  is  to 
be  done;  at  any  rate  it  is  to  be  attempted.  That  it  will  be  accom- 
plished by  the  treasury  department,  without  the  interference  of  con- 
gress, I  have  no  belief.  If  from  that  source  no  reformation  came, 
when  reformation  was  easy,  it  is  not  now  to  be  expected.  Especially 
after  the  vote  of  yesterday,  those  whose  interest  it  is  to  continue  the 
present  state  of  things,  will  arm  themselves  with  the  authority  of 
Congress.  They  will  justify  themselves  by  the  decision  of  this 
House.  They  will  say,  and  say  truly,  that  this  House,  having  taken 
up  the  subject  and  discussed  it,  has  not  thought  fit  so  much  as  to 
declare,  that  it  is  expedient  ever  to  relieve  the  country  or  its  reve- 
nues from  a  paper  money  system.  Whoever  believes  that  the  treas- 
ury department  will  oppose  this  tide,  aided,  as  it  will  be,  by  strong 
feeling  and  great  interest,  has  more  faith  in  that  department  than  has 
fallen  to  my  lot.  It  is  the  duty  of  this  House  to  interfere  with  its 
own  authority.  Having  taxed  the  people  with  no  light  hand,  it  is 
now  its  duty  to  take  care  that  the  people  do  not  sustain  these  bur- 
dens in  vain.  The  taxes  are  not  borne  without  feeling.  They  will 
not  be  borne  without  complaint,  if,  by  mismanagement  in  collection, 
their  utility  to  government  should  be  lost,  and  they  should  get  into 
the  treasury  at  last  only  in  discredited  and  useless  paper. 

A  bank  of  thirty-five  millions  has  been  created  for  the  professed 
purpose  of  correcting  the  evils  of  our  circulation,  and  facilitating 
the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  government.  I  am  not  so  sanguine 
in  the  hope  of  great  benefit  from  this  measure  as  others  are.  But 
the  treasury  is  also  authorised  to  issue  twenty-five  millions  of  treas- 
ury notes,  eighteen  or  twenty  millions  of  which  remain  yet  to  be  is- 
sued, and  which  are  also  allowed  by  law  to  be  received  on  duties  and 
taxes.  In  addition  to  these  is  the  coin  which  is  in  the  country,  and 
which  is  sure  to  come  forth  into  circulation  whenever  there  is  a  de- 
mand for  it.  These  means,  if  wisely  and  skilfully  administered, 
are  sufficient  to  prevent  any  particular  pressure  or  great  incon- 
venience, in  returning  to  the  legal  mode  of  collecting  the  revenue. 
It  is  true,  it  may  be  easier  for  the  people  in  the  states  in  which  the 
depreciated  paper  exists  to  pay  their  taxes  in  such  paper,  than  in 
the  legal  currency  of  treasury  notes,  because  they  can  get  it  cheap- 
er. But  this  is  only  saying  that  it  is  easier  to  pay  a  small  tax,  than 
to  pay  a  large  one:  or  that  money  costs  more  than  that  which  is  less 
valuable  than  money:  a  proposition  not  to  be  disputed.  But  a  medi- 
um of  payment,  convenient  for  the  people  and  safe  for  the  govern- 
ment will  be  furnished,  and  may  everywhere  be  obtained  for  a  rea- 
sonable price.  This  is  all  that  can  justly  be  expected  of  congress. 
Having  provided  this,  they  ought  to  require  all  parts  of  the  country 
to  conform  to  the  same  measure  of  justice.  If  taxes  be  not  neces- 
sary they  should  not  be  laid.  If  laid,  they  ought  to  be  collected 
without  preference  or  partiality. 

But  while  some  gentlemen  oppose  the  resolutions  because  they 
fix  a  day  too  near,  others  think  they  fix  a  day  too  distant.  In  my 
own  judgment,  it  is  not  so  material  what  the  time  is,  as  it  is  to  fix  a 
time.  The  great  object  is  to  settle  the  question,  that  our  legal  cur- 
rency is  to  be  preserved,  and  that  we  are  not  about  to  embark  on  the 


240 

ocean  of  paper  money.  The  state  banks,  if  they  consult  their  own 
interest,  or  the  interest  of  the  community,  will  dispose  of  their  gov- 
ernment stocks,  and  prepare  themselves  to  redeem  their  paper  and 
fulfil  their  contracts.  If  they  should  not  adopt  this  course,  there 
will  be  time  for  the  people  to  be  informed  that  the  paper  of  such 
institutions  will  not  answer  the  demands  of  government,  and  that 
duties  and  taxes  must  be  paid  in  the  manner  provided  by  law. 

I  cannot  say,  indeed,  that  this  measure  will  certainly  produce  the 
desired  effect.  It  may  fail.  Its  success,  as  is  obvious,  must  essen- 
tially depend  on  the  course  pursued  by  the  treasury  department. 
But  its  tendency,  I  think,  will  be  to  produce  good.  It  will,  I  hope, 
be  a  proof  that  congress  is  not  regardless  of  its  duty.  It  will  be 
evidence  that  this  great  subject  has  not  passed  without  notice.  It 
will  record  our  determination  to  resist  the  introduction  of  a  most  de- 
structive and  miserable  policy  into  our  system;  and  if  there  be  any 
sanction  or  authority  in  the  constitution  and  the  law;  if  there  be  any 
regard  for  justice  and  equality:  if  there  be  any  care  for  the  national 
revenue,  or  any  concern  for  the  public  interest,  let  gentlemen  con- 
sider whether  they  will  relinquish  their  seat  here,  before  this  or  some 
other  measure  be  adopted. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  GREEK  REVOLUTION,  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRE 
SENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JAN.  19,  1823. 

On  the  8th  of  December,  1823,  Mr.  Webster  presented,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
the  following  resolution  : 

"  Resolved,  That  provision  ought  to  be  made,  by  law,  for  defraying  the  expense  incident 
to  the  appointment  of  an  Agent  or  Commissioner  to  Greece,  whenever  the  President  shall 
deem  it  expedient  to  make  such  appointment." 

The  House  having,  on  the  19th  of  January,  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  this  resolution  being  taken  into  consideration,  Mr.  Webster  spoke  to  the  following 


I  am  afraid,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  so  far  as  my  part  in  this  discus- 
sion is  concerned,  those  expectations  which  the  public  excitement, 
existing  on  the  subject,  and  certain  associations,  easily  suggested  by 
it,  have  conspired  to  raise,  may  be  disappointed.  An  occasion  which 
calls  the  attention  to  a  spot,  so  distinguished,  so  connected  with  in- 
teresting recollections,  as  Greece,  may  naturally  create  something 
of  warmth  and  enthusiasm.  In  a  grave,  political  discussion,  how- 
ever, it  is  necessary  that,  that  feeling  should  be  chastised.  I  shall  en- 
deavour properly  to  repress  it,  although  it  is  impossible  that  it  should 
be  altogether  extinguished.  We  must,  indeed,  fly  beyond  the  civil- 
ized world,  we  must  pass  the  dominion  of  law,  and  the  boundaries, 
of  knowledge;  we  must,  more  especially,  withdraw  ourselves  from, 
this  place,  and  the  scenes  and  objects  which  here  surround  us,  if  we- 
would  separate  ourselves,  entirely,  from  the  influence  of  all  those 
memorials  of  herself  which  ancient  Greece  has  transmitted  for  the 
admiration,  and  the  benefit,  of  mankind.  This  free  form  of  govern- 
ment, this  popular  assembly,  the  common  council,  held  for  the  com- 
mon good,  where  have  we  contemplated  its  earliest  models?.  This 
practice  of  free  debate,  and  public  discussion,  the  contest  of  mind 
with  mind,  and  that  popular  eloquence,  which,  if  it  were  now  here, 
on  a  subject  like  this,  would  move  the  stones  of  the  Capitol, — whose 
was  the  language  in  which  all  these  were  first  exhibited?  Even  the 
Edifice  in  which  we  assemble,  these  proportioned  columns,  this  or- 
namented architecture,  all  remind  us  that  Greece  has  existed,  and 
that  we,  like  the  rest  of  mankind,  are  greatly  her  debtors.  But  I 
have  not  introduced  this  motion  in  the  vain  hope  of  discharging  any- 
thing of  this  accumulated  debt  of  centuries.  I  have  not  acted  upon 
the  expectation,  that  we,  who  have  inherited  this  obligation  from. 
31  w 


242 

our  ancestors,  should  now  attempt  to  pay  it,  to  those  who  may  seem 
to  have  inherited,  from  their  ancestors,  a  right  to  receive  payment. 
My  object  is  nearer  and  more  immediate.  I  wish  to  take  occasion 
of  the  struggle  of  an  interesting  and  gallant  people,  in  the  cause  of 
liberty  and  Christianity,  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
circumstances  which  have  accompanied  that  struggle,  and  to  the 
principles  which  appear  to  have  governed  the  conduct  of  the  great 
States  of  Europe,  in  regard  to  it;  and  to  the  effects  and  consequen- 
ces of  these  principles,  upon  the  independence  of  nations,  and  es- 
pecially upon  the  institutions  of  free  governments.  What  I  have  to 
say  of  Greece,  therefore,  concerns  the  modern,  not  the  ancient;  the 
living,  and  not  the  dead.  It  regards  her,  not  as  she  exists  in  his- 
tory, triumphant  over  time,  and  tyranny,  and  ignorance;  but  as  she 
now  is,  contending,  against  fearful  odds,  for  being,  and  for  the  com- 
mon privilege  of  human  nature. 

As  it  is  never  difficult  to  recite  commonplace  remarks,  and  trite 
aphorisms;  so  it  may  be  easy,  I  am  aware,  on  this  occasion,  to  re- 
mind me  of  the  wisdom  which  dictates  to  men  a  care  of  their  own 
affairs,  and  admonishes  them,  instead  of  searching  for  adventures 
abroad,  to  leave  other  men's  concerns  in  their  own  hands.  It  may 
be  easy  to  call  this  resolution  Quixotic,  the  emanation  of  a  crusading 
or  propagandist  spirit.  All  this,  and  more,  may  be  readily  said;  but 
all  this,  and  more,  will  not  be  allowed  to  fix  a  character  upon  this 
proceeding,  until  that  is  proved,  which  it  takes  for  granted.  Let  it 
first  be  shown,  that,  in  this  question,  there  is  nothing  which  can  af- 
fect the  interest,  the  character,  or  the  duty  of  this  country.  Let  it 
be  proved,  that  we  are  not  called  upon,  by  either  of  these  consider- 
ations, to  express  an  opinion  on  the  subject  to  which  the  resolution 
relates.  Let  this  be  proved,  and  then  it  will,  indeed,  be  made  out, 
that  neither  ought  this  resolution  to  pass,  nor  ought  the  subject  of 
it  to  have  been  mentioned  in  the  communication  of  the  President  to 
us.  But,  in  my  opinion,  this  cannot  be  shown.  In  my  judgment, 
the  subject  is  interesting  to  the  people  and  the  government  of  this 
country,  and  we  are  called  upon,  by  considerations  of  great  weight 
and  moment,  to  express  our  opinions  upon  it.  These  considerations, 
I  think,  spring  from  a  sense  of  our  own  duty,  our  character,  and  our 
own  interest.  I  wish  to  treat  the  subject  on  such  grounds,  exclu- 
sively, as  are  truly  American;  but  then,  in  considering  it  as  an  Ameri- 
can question,  I  cannot  forget  the  age  in  which  we  live,  the  prevail- 
ing spirit  of  the  age,  the  interesting  questions  which  agitate  it,  and 
our  own  peculiar  relation,  in  regard  to  these  interesting  questions. 
Let  this  be,  then,  and  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  hope  it  will  be, 
purely  an  American  discussion;  but  let  it  embrace,  nevertheless, 
everything  that  fairly  concerns  America;  let  it  comprehend,  not 
merely  her  present  advantage,  but  her  permanent  interest,  her  ele- 
vated character,  as  one  of  the  free  states  of  the  world,  and  her  duty 
towards  those  great  principles,  which  have  hitherto  maintained  the 
relative  independence  of  nations,  and  which  have,  more  especially, 
made  her  what  she  is. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  session,  the  President,  in  the  dis- 
charge of  the  high  duties  of  his  office,  called  our  attention  to  the 
subject,  to  which  this  resolution  refers.     u  A  strong  hope,"  says 


243 

that  communication,  "  has  been  long  entertained,  founded  on  the 
heroic  struggle  of  the  Greeks,  that  they  would  succeed  in  their 
contest,  and  resume  their  equal  station  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  It  is  believed  that  the  whole  civilized  world  takes  a  deep 
interest  in  their  welfare.  Although  no  power  has  declared  in  their 
favor,  yet  none,  according  to  our  information,  has  taken  part  against 
them.  Their  cause  and  their  name,  have  protected  them  from  dan- 
gers, which  might,  ere  this,  have  overwhelmed  any  other  people. 
The  ordinary  calculations  of  interest,  and  of  acquisition  with  a  view 
to  aggrandizement,  which  mingle  so  much  in  the  transactions  of  na- 
tions, seem  to  have  had  no  effect  in  regard  to  them.  From  the  facts 
which  have  come  to  our  knowledge,  there  is  good  cause  to  believe 
that  their  enemy  has  lost,  forever,  all  dominion  over  them:  that 
Greece  will  become  again  an  independent  nation." 

It  has  appeared  to  me,  that  the  House  should  adopt  some  resolution, 
reciprocating  these  sentiments,  so  far  as  it  should  approve  them. 
More  than  twenty  years  have  elapsed,  since  Congress  first  ceased  to 
receive  such  a  communication  from  the  President,  as  could  properly 
be  made  the  subject  of  a  general  answer.  I  do  not  mean  to  find 
fault  with  this  relinquishment  of  a  former,  and  an  ancient  practice. 
It  may  have  been  attended  with  inconveniences  which  justified  its 
abolition.  But,  certainly,  there  was  one  advantage  belonging  to  it; 
and  that  is,  that  it  furnished  a  fit  opportunity  for  the  expression  of 
the  opinion  of  the  Houses  of  Congress,  upon  those  topics  in  the 
Executive  communication,  which  were  not  expected  to  be  made  the 
immediate  subjects  of  direct  legislation.  Since,  therefore,  the 
President's  message  does  not  now  receive  a  general  answer,  it  has 
seemed  to  me  to  be  proper,  that  in  some  mode,  agreeable  to  our  own 
usual  form  of  proceeding,  we  should  express  our  sentiments  upon 
the  important  and  interesting  topics  on  which  it  treats. 

If  the  sentiments  of  the  message  in  respect  to  Greece  be  proper, 
it  i3  equally  proper  that  this  House  should  reciprocate  those  senti- 
ments. The  present  resolution  is  designed  to  have  that  extent,  and 
no  more.  If  it  pass,  it  will  leave  any  future  proceeding  where  it 
now  is,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Executive  Government.  It  is  but 
an  expression,  under  those  forms  in  which  the  House  is  accustomed 
to  act,  of  the  satisfaction  of  the  House  with  the  general  sentiments 
expressed  in  regard  to  this  subject  in  the  message,  and  of  its  readi- 
ness to  defray  the  expense  incident  to  any  inquiry  for  the  purpose 
of  further  information,  or  any  other  agency  which  the  President,  in 
his  discretion,  shall  see  fit,  in  whatever  manner,  and  at  whatever 
time,  to  institute.  The  whole  matter  is  still  left  in  his  judgment, 
and  this  resolution  can  in  no  way  restrain  its  unlimited  exercise. 

I  might  well,  Mr.  Chairman,  avoid  the  responsibility  of  this  mea- 
sure, if  it  had,  in  my  judgment,  any  tendency  to  change  the  policy 
of  the  country.  With  the  general  course  of  that  policy,  I  am  quite 
satisfied.  The  nation  is  prosperous,  peaceful,  and  happy;  and  I 
should  very  reluctantly  put  its  peace,  prosperity,  or  happiness,  at 
risk.  It  appears  to  me,  however,  that  this  resolution  is  strictly  con- 
formable to  our  general  policy,  and  not  only  consistent  with  our  in- 
terests, but  even  demanded  by  a  large  and  liberal  view  of  those 
interests. 


244 

It  is  certainly  true,  that  the  just  policy  of  this  country,  is,  in  the 
first  place,  a  peaceful  policy.  No  nation  ever  had  less  to  expect 
from  forcible  aggrandizement.  The  mighty  agents  which  are  work- 
ing out  our  greatness,  are  time,  industry,  and  the  arts.  Our  aug- 
mentation is  by  growth,  not  by  acquisition;  by  internal  developement, 
not  by  external  accession.  No  schemes  can  be  suggested  to  us,  so 
magnificent  as  the  prospects  which  a  sober  contemplation  of  our 
own  condition,  unaided  by  projects,  uninfluenced  by  ambition,  fair- 
ly spreads  before  us.  A  country  of  such  vast  extent,  with  such 
varieties  of  soil  and  climate;  with  so  much  public  spirit  and  private 
enterprise;  with  a  population  increasing  so  much  beyond  former  ex- 
amples, with  capacities  of  improvement  not  only  unapplied  or  unex- 
hausted, but  even,  in  a  great  measure,  as  yet,  unexplored;  so  free  in 
its  institutions,  so  mild  in  its  laws,  so  secure  in  the  title  it  confers  on 
every  man  to  his  own  acquisitions;  needs  nothing  but  time  and  peace 
to  carry  it  forward  to  almost  any  point  of  advancement. 

In  the  next  place,  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  policy  of  this 
country,  springing  from  the  nature  of  our  government,  and  the  spirit 
of  all  our  institutions,  is,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  interesting  ques- 
tions which  agitate  the  present  age,  on  the  side  of  liberal  and  en- 
lightened sentiments.  The  age  is  extraordinary;  the  spirit  that  ac- 
tuates it,  is  peculiar  and  marked;  and  our  own  relation  to  the  times 
we  livB  in,  and  to  the  questions  which  interest  them,  is  equally 
marked  and  peculiar.  We  are  placed,  by  our  good  fortune,  and  the 
wisdom  and  valor  of  our  ancestors,  in  a  condition  in  which  we  can 
act  no  obscure  part.  Be  it  for  honor,  or  be  it  for  dishonor,  what- 
ever we  do,  is  not  likely  to  escape  the  observation  of  the  world.  As 
one  of  the  free  states  among  the  nations,  as  a  great  and  rapidly 
rising  republic,  it  would  be  impossible  for  us,  if  we  were  so  dis- 
posed, to  prevent  our  principles,  our  sentiments,  and  our  example, 
from  producing  some  effect  upon  the  opinions  and  hopes  of  society 
throughout  the  civilized  world.  It  rests  probably  with  ourselves  to 
determine,  whether  the  influence  of  these  shall  be  salutary  or  per- 
nicious. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  great  political  question  of  this  age, 
is  that  between  absolute  and  regulated  governments.  The  sub- 
stance of  the  controversy  is,  whether  society  shall  have  any  part  in 
its  own  government.  Whether  the  form  of  government  shall  be 
that  of  limited  monarchy,  with  more  or  less  mixture  of  hereditary 
power,  or  wholly  elective,  or  representative,  may  perhaps  be  con- 
sidered as  subordinate.  The  main  controversy  is  between  that 
absolute  rule,  which,  while  it  promises  to  govern  well,  means  never- 
theless to  govern  without  control,  and  that  regulated  or  constitution- 
al system,  which  restrains  sovereign  discretion,  and  asserts  that 
society  may  claim,  as  matter  of  right,  some  effective  power  in  the 
establishment  of  the  laws  which  are  to  regulate  it.  The  spirit  of 
the  times  sets  with  a  most  powerful  current,  in  favor  of  these 
last  mentioned  opinions.  It  is  opposed,  however,  whenever  and 
wherever  it  shows  itself,  by  certain  of  the  great  potentates  of 
Europe;  and  it  is  opposed  on  grounds  as  applicable  in  one  civilized 
nation  as  in  another,  and  which  would  justify  such  opposition  in  re- 
lation to  the  United  States,  as  well  as  in  relation  to  any  other  state, 


245 

or  nation,  if  time  and  circumstance  should  render  such  opposition 
expedient. 

What  part  it  becomes  this  country  to  take  on  a  question  of  this 
sort,  so  far  as  it  is  called  upon  to  take  any  part,  cannot  be  doubtful 
Our  side  of  this  question  is  settled  for  us,  even  without  our  own 
volition.  Our  history,  our  situation,  our  character,  necessarily  de- 
cide our  position  and  our  course,  before  we  have  even  time  to  ask 
whether  we  have  an  option.  Our  place  is  on  the  side  of  free  in- 
stitutions. From  the  earliest  settlement  of  these  states,  their  in- 
habitants were  accustomed,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  to  the 
enjoyment  of  the  powers  of  self-government;  and  for  the  last  half 
century,  they  have  sustained  systems  of  government  entirely  repre- 
sentative, yielding  to  themselves  the  greatest  possible  prosperity, 
and  not  leaving  them  without  distinction  and  respect  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  This  system  we  are  not  likely  to  abandon; 
and  while  we  shall  no  farther  recommend  its  adoption  to  other  na- 
tions, in  whole  or  in  part,  than  it  may  recommend  itself  by  its  visi- 
ble influence  on  our  own  growth  and  prosperity,  we  are,  neverthe- 
less, interested,  to  resist  the  establishment  of  doctrines  which  deny 
the  legality  of  its  foundations.  We  stand  as  an  equal  among 
nations,  claiming  the  full  benefit  of  the  established  international 
law;  and  it  is  our  duty  to  oppose,  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest 
moment,  any  innovations  upon  that  code,  which  shall  bring  into 
doubt  or  question  our  own  equal  and  independent  rights. 

I  will  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  advert  to  those  pretensions,  put  forth 
by  the  Allied  Sovereigns  of  continental  Europe,  which  seem  to  me 
calculated,  if  unresisted,  to  bring  into  disrepute  the  principles  of  our 
government,  and  indeed  to  be  wholly  incompatible  with  any  degree 
of  national  independence.  I  do  not  introduce  these  considerations 
for  the  sake  of  topics.  I  am  not  about  to  declaim  against  crowned 
heads,  nor  to  quarrel  with  any  country  for  preferring  a  form  of  gov- 
ernment different  from  our  own.  The  choice  that  we  exercise  for 
ourselves,  I  am  quite  willing  to  leave  also  to  others.  But  it  appears 
to  me  that  the  pretensions  of  which  I  have  spoken,  are  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  the  independence  of  nations  generally,  without  regard 
to  the  question,  whether  their  governments  be  absolute,  monarchical 
and  limited,  or  purely  popular  and  representative.  I  have  a  most 
deep  and  thorough  conviction,  that  a  new  era  has  arisen  in  the  world, 
that  new  and  dangerous  combinations  are  taking  place,  promulgating 
doctrines,  and  fraught  with  consequences,  wholly  subversive,  in  their 
tendency,  of  the  .public  law  of  nations,  and  of  the  general  liberties 
of  mankind.  Whether  this  be  so,  or  not,  is  the  question  which  I  now 
propose  to  examine,  upon  such  grounds  of  information,  as  the  com- 
mon and  public  means  of  knowledge  disclose. 

Everybody  knows  that,  since  the  final  restoration  of  the  Bourbons  to 
the  throne  of  France,  the  continental  powers  have  entered  into  sundry 
alliances,  which  have  been  made  public,  and  have  held  several  meet- 
ings or  Congresses,  at  which  the  principles  of  their  political  conduct 
have  been  declared.  These  things  must  necessarily  have  an  effect 
upon  the  international  law  of  the  states  of  the  world.  If  that  effect 
be  good,  and  according  to  the  principles  of  that  law,  they  deserve 
to  be  applauded.     If,  on  the  contrary,  their  effect  and  tendency  be 


246 

most  dangerous,  their  principles  wholly  inadmissible,  their  pretensions 
such  as  would  abolish  every  degree  of  national  independence,  then 
they  are  to  be  resisted. 

I  begin,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  drawing  your  attention  to  the  treaty, 
concluded  at  Paris  in  September,  1815,  between  Russia,  Prussia,  and 
Austria,  commonly  called  the  Holy  Alliance.  This  singular  alliance 
appears  to  have  originated  with  the  Emperor  of  Russia;  for  we  are 
informed  that  a  draught  of  it  was  exhibited  by  him,  personally,  to  a 
plenipotentiary  of  one  of  the  great  powers  of  Europe,  before  it  was 
presented  to  the  other  sovereigns  who  ultimately  signed  it.*  This 
instrument  professes  nothing,  certainly,  which  is  not  extremely  com- 
mendable and  praiseworthy.  It  promises  only  that  the  contracting 
parties,  both  in  relation  to  other  states,  and  in  regard  to  their  own 
?  ubjects,  will  observe  the  rules  of  justice  and  Christianity.  In  con- 
firmation of  these  promises,  it  makes  the  most  solemn  and  devout  re- 
ligious invocations.  Now,  although  such  an  alliance  is  a  novelty  in 
European  history,  the  world  seems  to  have  received  this  treaty,  upon 
its  first  promulgation,  with  general  charity.  It  was  commonly  under- 
stood as  little  or  nothing  more  than  an  expression  of  thanks  for  the 
successful  termination  of  the  momentous  contest,  in  which  those  sove- 
reigns had  been  engaged.  It  still  seems  somewhat  unaccountable, 
however,  that  these  good  resolutions  should  require  to  be  confirmed 
by  treaty.  Who  doubted,  that  these  august  sovereigns  would  treat 
each  other  with  justice,  and  rule  their  own  subjects  in  mercy?  And 
what  necessity  was  there,  for  a  solemn  stipulation  by  treaty,  to  en- 
•  sure  the  performance  of  that,  which  is  no  more  than  the  ordinary 
duty  of  every  government  ?  It  would  hardly  be  admitted  by  these 
sovereigns,  that,  by  this  compact,  they  suppose  themselves  bound  to 
introduce  an  entire  change,  or  any  change,  in  the  course  of  their 
own  conduct.  Nothing  substantially  new,  certainly,  can  be  suppos- 
ed to  have  been  intended.  What  principle,  or  what  practice,  there- 
fore, called  for  this  solemn  declaration  of  the  intention  of  the  par- 
ties to  observe  the  rules  of  religion  and  justice? 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  a  writer  of  reputation  upon  the 
Public  Law,  described,  many  years  ago,  not  inaccurately,  the  char- 
acter of  this  alliance:  I  allude  to  Puffendorff.  "  It  seems  useless," 
says  he,  "  to  frame  any  pacts  or  leagues,  barely  for  the  defence  and 
support  of  universal  peace;  for,  by  such  a  league,  nothing  is  super- 
added to  the  obligation  of  natural  law,  and  no  agreement  is  made 
for  the  performance  of  anything,  which  the  parties  were  not  previous- 
ly bound  to  perform;  nor  is  the  original  obligation  rendered  firmer  or 
stronger  by  such  an  addition.  Men  of  any  tolerable  culture  and  civ- 
ilisation, might  well  be  ashamed  of  entering  into  any  such  compact, 
the  conditions  of  which  imply  only  that  the  parties  concerned  shall 
not  offend  in  any  clear  point  of  duty.  Besides,  we  should  be  guilty 
of  great  irreverence  towards  God,  should  we  suppose  that  his  injunc- 
tions had  not  already  laid  a  sufficient  obligation  upon  us  to  act  just- 
ly, unless  we  ourselves  voluntarily  consented  to  the  same  engage- 
ment: as  if  our  obligation  to  obey  his  will,  depended  upon  our  own 
pleasure. 

*  Vide  Lord  Castlereagh's  Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  February  3,  1816.     De- 
bates in  Parliament,  vol.  36,  page  355  j    where  also  the  Treaty  may  be  found  at  length. 


247 

"  If  one  engage  to  serve  another,  he  does  not  set  it  down  express- 
ly and  particularly  among  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  bargain, 
that  he  will  not  betray  nor  murder  him,  nor  pillage  nor  burn  his 
house.  For  the  same  reason,  that  would  be  a  dishonorable  engage- 
ment, in  which  men  should  bind  themselves  to  act  properly  and  de 
cently,  and  not  break  the  peace."* 

Such  were  the  sentiments  of  that  eminent  writer.  How  nearly 
he  had  anticipated  the  case  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  will  appear  from 
comparing  his  observations  with  the  preamble  to  that  alliance,  which 
is  as  follows: 

"  In  the  name  of  the  most  Holy  and  Indivisible  Trinity,  their 
Majesties  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  the  King  of  Prussia,  and  the 
Emperor  of  Russia," — "  solemnly  declare,  that  the  present  act  has 
no  other  object  than  to  publish,  in  the  face  of  the  whole  world,  their 
fixed  resolution,  both  in  the  administration  of  their  respective  states, 
and  in  their  political  relations  with  every  other  government,  to  take 
for  their  sole  guide  the  precepts  of  that  holy  religion,  namely,  the 
precepts  of  justice,  Christian  charity,  and  peace,  which,  far  from 
being  applicable  only  to  private  concerns,  must  have  an  immediate 
influence  on  the  councils  of  princes,  and  guide  all  their  steps,  as 
being  the  only  means  of  consolidating  human  institutions,  and  reme- 
dying their  imperfections." 

This  measure,  however,  appears  principally  important,  as  it  was 
the  first  of  a  series,  and  was  followed  afterwards  by  others  of  a  more 
marked  and  practical  nature.  These  measures,  taken  together, 
profess  to  establish  two  principles,  which  the  Allied  Powers  would 
enforce,  as  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  civilized  world;  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  which  is  menaced  by  a  million  and  a  half  of  bayonets. 

The  first  of  these  principles  is,  that  all  popular,  or  constitutional 
rights,  are  holden  no  otherwise  than  as  grants  from  the  crown. 
Society,  upon  this  principle,  has  no  rights  of  its  own;  it  takes  good 
government,  when  it  gets  it,  as  a  boon  and  a  concession,  but  can 
demand  nothing.  It  is  to  live  in  that  favor  which  emanates  from 
royal  authority,  and  if  it  have  the  misfortune  to  lose  that  favor,  there 
is  nothing  to  protect  it  against  any  degree  of  injustice  and  oppres 
sion.  It  can  rightfully  make  no  endeavour  for  a  change,  by  itself; 
its  whole  privilege  is  to  receive  the  favors  that  may  be  dispensed  by 
the  sovereign  power,  and  all  its  duty  is  described  in  the  single  word, 
submission.  This  is  the  plain  result  of  the  principal  continental  state 
papers;  indeed  it  is  nearly  the  identical  text  of  some  of  them. 

The  Laybach  circular  of  May,  1821,  alleges,  "that  useful  and 
necessary  changes  in  legislation  and  administration,  ought  only  to 
emanate  from  the  free  will  and  intelligent  conviction  of  those  whom 
God  has  rendered  responsible  for  power;  all  that  deviates  from  this 
line  necessarily  leads  to  disorder,  commotions,  and  evils,  far  more 
insufferable  than  those  which  they  pretend  to  remedy,  "f  Now,  sir, 
this  principle  would  carry  Europe  back  again,  at  once,  into  the 
middle  of  the  dark  ages.  It  is  the  old  doctrine  of  the  divine  right 
of  kings,  advanced  now,  by  new  advocates,  and  sustained  by  a  for- 
midable array  of  power.  That  the  people  hold  their  fundamental 
privileges,  as  matter  of  concession  or  indulgence,  from  the  sovereign 

*  Book  2,  cap.  2.  f  Annual  Register,  for  1821. 


248 

power,  is  a  sentiment  not  easy  to  be  diffused  in  this  age,  any  farther 
than  it  is  enforced  by  the  direct  operation  of  military  means.  It  is 
true,  certainly,  that  some  six  centuries  ago,  the  early  founders  of 
English  liberty  called  the  instrument  which  secured  their  rights  a 
Charter;  it  was,  indeed,  a  concession;  they  had  obtained  it,  sword 
in  hand,  from  the  king;  and,  in  many  other  cases,  whatever  was 
obtained,  favorable  to  human  rights,  from  the  tyranny  and  despot- 
ism of  the  feudal  sovereigns,  was  called  by  the  names  of  privileges 
and  liberties,  as  being  matter  of  special  favor.  And,  though  we 
retain  this  language  at  the  present  time,  the  principle  itself  belongs 
to  ages  that  have  long  passed  by  us.  The  civilized  world  has  done 
with  the  enormous  faith,  of  many  made  for  one.  Society  asserts  its 
own  rights,  and  alleges  them  to  be  original,  sacred,  and  unalienable. 
It  is  not  satisfied  with  having  kind  masters;  it  demands  a  participa- 
tion in  its  own  government:  and,  in  states  much  advanced  in  civilisa- 
tion, it  urges  this  demand  with  a  constancy  and  an  energy,  that 
cannot  well,  nor  long,  be  resisted.  There  are,  happily,  enough  of 
regulated  governments  in  the  world,  and  those  among  the  most  dis- 
tinguished, to  operate  as  constant  examples,  and  to  keep  alive  an 
unceasing  panting  in  the  bosoms  of  men,  for  the  enjoyment  of  similar 
free  institutions. 

When  the  English  revolution  of  1688  took  place,  the  English 
people  did  not  content  themselves  with  the  example  of  Runnymede; 
they  did  not  build  their  hopes  upon  royal  charters;  they  did  not,  like 
the  Laybach  circular,  suppose  that  all  useful  changes  in  constitutions 
and  laws  must  proceed  from  those  only  whom  God  has  rendered  re- 
sponsible for  power.  They  were  somewhat  better  instructed  in  the 
principles  of  civil  liberty,  or  at  least  they  were  better  lovers  of  those 
principles,  than  the  sovereigns  of  Laybach.  Instead  of  petitioning 
for  charters,  they  declared  their  rights,  and,  while  they  offered  to  the 
family  of  Orange  the  crown  with  one  hand,  they  held  in  the  other 
an  enumeration  of  those  privileges  which  they  did  not  profess  to  hold 
as  favors,  but  which  they  demanded  and  insisted  upon,  as  their  un- 
doubted rights. 

I  need  not  stop  to  observe,  Mr.  Chairman,  how  totally  hostile  are 
these  doctrines  of  Laybach,  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our 
government.  They  are  in  direct  contradiction:  the  principles  of 
good  and  evil  are  hardly  more  opposite.  If  these  principles  of  the 
sovereigns  be  true,  we  are  but  in  a  state  of  rebellion,  or  of  anarchy, 
and  are  only  tolerated  among  civilized  states,  because  it  has  not  yet 
been  convenient  to  conform  us  to  the  true  standard. 

But  the  second,  and,  if  possible,  the  still  more  objectionable  prin- 
ciple, avowed  in  these  papers,  is  the  right  of  forcible  interference 
in  the  affairs  of  other  states.  A  right  to  control  nations  in  their 
desire  to  change  their  own  government,  wherever  it  may  be  con- 
jectured, or  pretended  that  such  change  might  furnish  an  example 
to  the  subjects  of  other  states,  is  plainly  and  distinctly  asserted. 
The  same  Congress  that  made  the  declaration  at  Laybach,  had 
declared,  before  its  removal  from  Troppau,  "  that  the  powers  have 
an  undoubted  right  to  take  a  hostile  attitude  in  regard  to  those 
states  in  which  the  overthrow  of  the  government  may  operate  as 
an  example." 


249 

There  cannot,  as  I  think,  be  conceived  a  more  flagrant  violation 
of  public  law,  or  national  independence,  than  is  contained  in  this 
short  declaration. 

No  matter  what  be  the  character  of  the  government  resisted;  no 
matter  with  what  weight  the  foot  of  the  oppressor  bears  on  the  neck 
of  the  oppressed;  if  he  struggle,  or  if  he  complain,  he  sets  a  dan- 
gerous example  of  resistance, — and  from  that  moment  he  becomes 
an  object  of  hostility  to  the  most  powerful  potentates  of  the  earth. 
I  want  words  to  express  my  abhorrence  of  this  abominable  principle. 
I  trust  every  enlightened  man  throughout  the  world  will  oppose  it, 
and  that,  especially,  those  who,  like  ourselves,  are  fortunately  out 
of  the  reach  of  the  bayonets  that  enforce  it,  will  proclaim  their  de- 
testation of  it,  in  a  tone  both  loud  and  decisive.  The  avowed  object 
of  such  declarations  is  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  world.  But  by 
what  means  is  it  proposed  to  preserve  this  peace?  Simply,  by 
bringing  the  power  of  all  governments  to  bear  against  all  subjects. 
Here  is  to  be  established  a  sort  of  double,  or  treble,  or  quadruple, 
or,  for  aught  I  know,  a  quintuple  allegiance.  An  offence  against 
one  king  is  to  be  an  offence  against  all  kings,  and  the  power  of  all 
is  to  be  put  forth  for  the  punishment  of  the  offender.  A  right  to 
interfere  in  extreme  cases,  in  the  case  of  contiguous  states,  and 
where  imminent  danger  is  threatened  to  one  by  what  is  tran«piring 
in  another,  is  not  without  precedent  in  modern  times,  upon  what  has 
been  called  the  law  of  vicinage;  and  when  confined  to  extreme  cases, 
and  limited  to  a  certain  extent,  it  may  perhaps  be  defended  upon 
principles  of  necessity  and  self-defence.  But  to  maintain  that  sove- 
reigns may  go  to  war  upon  the  subjects  of  another  state  to  repress 
an  example,  is  monstrous  indeed.  What  is  to  be  the  limit  to  such  a 
principle,  or  to  the  practice  growing  out  of  it  ?  What,  in  any  case, 
but  sovereign  pleasure  is  to  decide  whether  the  example  be  good 
or  bad?  And  what,  under  the  operation  of  such  rule,  may  be 
thought  of  our  example?  Why  are  we  not  as  fair  objects  for  the 
operation  of  the  new  principle,  as  any  of  those  who  may  attempt  to 
reform  the  condition  of  their  government,  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic  ? 

The  ultimate  effect  of  this  alliance  of  sovereigns,  for  objects  per- 
sonal to  themselves,  or  respecting  only  the  permanence  of  their  own 
power,  must  be  the  destruction  of  all  just  feeling,  and  all  natural 
sympathy,  between  those  who  exercise  the  power  of  government  and 
those  who  are  subject  to  it.  The  old  channels  of  mutual  regard  and 
confidence  are  to  be  dried  up,  or  cut  off.  Obedience  can  now  be 
expected  no  longer  than  it  is  enforced.  Instead  of  relying  on  the 
affections  of  the  governed,  sovereigns  are  to  rely  on  the  affections 
and  friendship  of  other  sovereigns.  There  are,  in  short,  no  longer 
to  be  nations.  Princes  and  people  no  longer  are  to  unite  for  inter- 
ests common  to  them  both.  There  is  to  be  an  end  of  all  patriotism, 
as  a  distinct  national  feeling.  Society  is  to  be  divided  horizontally; 
all  sovereigns  above,  and  all  subjects  below;  the  former  coalescing 
for  their  own  security,  and  for  the  more  certain  subjection  of  the 
undistinguished  multitude  beneath.  This,  sir,  is  no  picture,  drawn 
by  imagination.  I  have  hardly  used  language  stronger  than  that  in 
which  the  authors  of  this  new  system  have  commented  on  their  own 
32 


250 

work.  Mr.  Chateaubriand,  in  his  speech  in  the  French  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  in  February  last,  declared,  that  he  had  a  conference  with 
the  Emperor  of  Russia  at  Verona,  in  which  that  august  sovereign 
uttered  sentiments  which  appeared  to  him  so  precious,  that  he  im- 
mediately hastened  home,  and  wrote  them  down  while  yet  fresh  in 
his  recollection.  "  The  Emperor  declared"  said  he,  "  that  there  can 
no  longer  be  such  a  thing  as  an  English,  French,  Russian,  Prussian,  or 
Austrian  policy :  there  is  henceforth  but  one  policy,  which,  for  the  safety 
of  all,  should  be  adopted  both  by  people  and  kings.  It  was  for  me  first 
to  show  myself  convinced  of  the  principles  upon  which  I  founded  the  alli- 
ance; an  occasion  offered  itself;  the  rising  in  Greece.  Nothing  certainly 
could  occur  more  for  my  interests,  for  the  interests  of  my  people;  nothing 
more  acceptable  to  my  country,  than  a  religious  war  in  Turkey:  but  I 
have  thought  I  perceived  in  the  troubles  of  the  Morea,  the  sign  of  revo- 
lution, and  I  have  held  back.  Providence  has  not  put  under  my  com- 
mand 800,000  soldiers,  to  satisfy  my  ambition,  but  to  protect  religion, 
morality,  and  justice,  and  to  secure  the  prevalence  of  those  principles  of 
order  on  ivhich  human  society  ?'ests.  It  may  well  be  permitted  that  kings 
may  have  public  alliances  to  defend  themselves  against  secret  enemies. n 
These,  sir,  are  the  words  which  the  French  minister  thought  so 
important  as  that  they  deserved  to  be  recorded;  and  I,  too,  sir,  am 
of  the  same  opinion.  But,  if  it  be  true  that  there  is  hereafter  to  be 
neither  a  Russian  policy,  nor  a  Prussian  policy,  nor  an  Austrian 
policy,  nor  a  French  policy,  nor  even,  which  yet  I  will  not  believe, 
an  English  policy;  there  will  be,  I  trust  in  God,  an  American  policy. 
If  the  authority  of  all  these  governments  be  hereafter  to  be  mixed 
and  blended,  and  to  flow  in  one  augmented  current  of  prerogative, 
over  the  face  of  Europe,  sweeping  away  all  resistance  in  its  course, 
it  will  yet  remain  for  us  to  secure  our  own  happiness,  by  the  preser- 
vation of  our  own  principles;  which  I  hope  we  shall  have  the  manli- 
ness to  express  on  all  proper  occasions,  and  the  spirit  to  defend  in 
every  extremity.  The  end  and  scope  of  this  amalgamated  policy  is 
neither  more  nor  less  than  this: — to  interfere,  by  force,  for  any  gov- 
ernment, against  any  people  who  may  resist  it.  Be  the  state  of  the 
people  what  it  may,  they  shall  not  rise;  be  the  government  what  it 
will,  it  shall  not  be  opposed.  The  practical  commentary  has  cor- 
responded with  the  plain  language  of  the  text.  Look  at  Spain,  and 
at  Greece.  If  men  may  not  resist  the  Spanish  inquisition,  and  the 
Turkish  cimeter,  what  is  there  to  which  humanity  must  not  submit? 
Stronger  cases  can  never  arise.  Is  it  not  proper  for  us,  at  all  times 
— is  it  not  our  duty,  at  this  time,  to  come  forth,  and  deny,  and  con- 
demn, these  monstrous  principles.  Where,  but  here,  and  in  one 
other  place,  are  they  likely  to  be  resisted?  They  are  advanced  with 
equal  coolness  and  boldness;  and  they  are  supported  by  immense 
power.  The  timid  will  shrink  and  give  way — and  many  of  the 
brave  may  be  compelled  to  yield  to  force.  Human  liberty  may  yet, 
perhaps,  be  obliged  to  repose  its  principal  hopes  on  the  intelligence 
and  the  vigor  of  the  Saxon  race.  As  far  as  depends  on  us,  at  least, 
I  trust  those  hopes  will  not  be  disappointed;  and  that,  to  the  extent 
which  may  consist  with  our  own  settled,  pacific  policy,  our  opinions 
and  sentiments  may  be  brought  to  act,  on  the  right  side,  and  to  the 
right  end,  on  an  occasion  which  is,  in  truth,  nothing  less  than  a  mo- 


251 

mentous  question  between  an  intelligent  age,  full  of  knowledge, 
thirsting  for  improvement,  and  quickened  by  a  thousand  impulses, 
on  one  side,  and  the  most  arbitrary  pretensions,  sustained  by  unpre- 
cedented power,  on  the  other. 

This  asserted  right  of  forcible  intervention,  in  the  affairs  of  other 
nations,  is  in  open  violation  of  the  public  law  of  the  world.  Who 
has  authorised  these  learned  doctors  of  Troppau,  to  establish  new 
articles  in  this  code?  Whence  are  their  diplomas?  Is  the  whole 
world  expected  to  acquiesce  in  principles,  which  entirely  subvert 
the  independence  of  nations?  On  the  basis  of  this  independence 
has  been  reared  the  beautiful  fabric  of  international  law.  On  the 
principle  of  this  independence,  Europe  has  seen  a  family  of  nations, 
flourishing  within  its  limits,  the  small  among  the  large,  protected  not 
always  by  power,  but  by  a  principle  above  power,  by  a  sense  of 
propriety  and  justice.  On  this  principle  the  great  commonwealth  of 
civilized  states  has  been  hitherto  upheld.  There  have  been  occa- 
sional departures,  or  violations,  and  always  disastrous,  as  in  the  case 
of  Poland;  but,  in  general,  the  harmony  of  the  system  has  been 
wonderfully  preserved.  In  the  production  and  preservation  of  this 
sense  of  justice,  this  predominating  principle,  the  Christian  religion 
has  acted  a  main  part.  Christianity  and  civilisation  have  labored 
together;  it  seems,  indeed,  to  be  a  law  of  our  human  condition,  thai 
they  can  live  and  flourish  only  together.  From  their  blended  in- 
fluence has  arisen  that  delightful  spectacle  of  the  prevalence  of  rea- 
son and  principle,  over  power  and  interest,  so  well  described  by  one 
who  was  an  honor  to  the  age — 

"  And  sovereign  Law,  the  world's  collected  will, 

O'er  thrones  and  globe*  elate, 
Sits  Empress — crowning  good,  repressing  ill  : 

Smit  by  her  sacred  frown, 
The  fiend,  Discretion,  like  a  vapor,  sinks, 

And  e'en  the  all-dazzling  crown 
Hides  his  faint  rays,  and  at  her  bidding  shrinks." 

But  this  vision  is  past.  While  the  teachers  of  Laybach  give  the 
rule,  there  will  be  no  law  but  the  law  of  the  strongest. 

It  may  now  be  required  of  me  to  show  what  interest  we  have,  in 
resisting  this  new  system.  What  is  it  to  us,  it  may  be  asked,  upon 
what  principles,  or  what  pretences,  the  European  governments 
assert  a  right  of  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  their  neighbours?  The 
thunder,  it  may  be  said,  rolls  at  a  distance.  The  wide  Atlantic  is 
between  us  and  danger;  and,  however  others  may  suffer,  we  shall 
remain  safe. 

I  think  it  a  sufficient  answer  to  this,  to  say,  that  we  are  one  of 
the  nations;  that  we  have  an  interest,  therefore,  in  the  preservation 
of  that  system  of  national  law  and  national  intercourse,  which  has 
heretofore  subsisted,  so  beneficially  for  all.  Our  system  of  govern- 
ment, it  should  also  be  remembered,  is,  throughout,  founded  on 
principles  utterly  hostile  to  the  new  code;  and,  if  we  remain  undis- 
turbed by  its  operation,  we  shall  owe  our  security,  either  to  our  sit- 
uation or  our  spirit.  The  enterprising  character  of  the  age,  our 
own  active  commercial  spirit,  the  great  increase  which  has  taken 
place  in  the  intercourse  between  civilized  and  commercial  states, 


252 

have  necessarily  connected  us  with  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and 
given  us  a  high  concern  in  the  preservation  of  those  salutary  prin- 
ciples, upon  which  that  intercourse  is  founded.  We  have  as  clear 
an  interest  in  international  law,  as  individuals  have  in  the  laws  of 
society. 

But,  apart  from  the  soundness  of  the  policy,  on  the  ground  of 
direct  interest,  we  have,  sir,  a  duty,  connected  with  this  subject, 
which,  I  trust,  we  are  willing  to  perform.  What  do  ive  not  owe  to 
the  cause  of  civil  and  religious  liberty?  to  the  principle  of  lawful 
resistance?  to  the  principle  that  society  has  aright  to  partake  in 
its  own  government?  As  the  leading  Republic  of  the  world, 
living  and  breathing  in  these  principles,  and  advanced,  by  their 
operation,  with  unequalled  rapidity,  in  our  career,  shall  we  give  our 
consent  to  bring  them  into  disrepute  and  disgrace?  It  is  neither  os- 
tentation nor  boasting,  to  say,  that  there  lie  before  this  country,  in 
immediate  prospect,  a  great  extent  and  height  of  power.  We  are 
borne  along  towards  this,  without  effort,  and  not  always  even  with 
a  full  knowledge  of  the  rapidity  of  our  own  motion.  Circumstances 
which  never  combined  before,  have  cooperated  in  our  favor,  and  a 
mighty  current  is  setting  us  forward,  which  we  could  not  resist,  even 
if  we  would,  and  which,  while  we  would  stop  to  make  an  observation, 
and  take  the  sun,  has  set  us,  at  the  end  of  the  operation,  far  in  ad- 
vance of  the  place  where  we  commenced  it.  Does  it  not  become 
us,  then,  is  it  not  a  duty  imposed  on  us,  to  give  our  weight  to  the 
side  of  liberty  and  justice — to  let  mankind  know  that  we  are  not 
tired  of  our  own  institutions — and  to  protest  against  the  asserted 
power  of  altering,  at  pleasure,  the  law  of  the  civilized  world? 

But,  whatever  we  do,  in  this  respect,  it  becomes  us  to  do  upon 
clear  and  consistent  principles.  There  is  an  important  topic  in  the 
Message,  to  which  I  have  yet  hardly  alluded.  I  mean  the  rumored 
combination  of  the  European  continental  sovereigns,  against  the 
new  established  free  states  of  South  America.  Whatever  position 
this  government  may  take  on  that  subject,  I  trust  it  will  be  one 
which  can  be  defended,  on  known  and  acknowledged  grounds  of 
right.  The  near  approach,  or  the  remote  distance  of  danger,  may 
affect  policy,  but  cannot  change  principle.  The  same  reason  that 
would  authorise  us  to  protest  against  unwarrantable  combinations 
to  interfere  between  Spain  and  her  former  colonies,  would  authorise 
us  equally  to  protest,  if  the  same  combination  were  directed  against 
the  smallest  state  in  Europe,  although  our  duty  to  ourselves,  our 
policy,  and  wisdom,  might  indicate  very  different  courses,  as  fit  to 
be  pursued  by  us  in  the  two  cases.  We  shall  not,  I  trust,  act  upon 
the  notion  of  dividing  the  world  with  the  Holy  Alliance,  and  complain 
of  nothing  done  by  them  in  their  hemisphere,  if  they  will  not  interfere 
with  ours.  At  least  this  would  not  be  such  a  course  of  policy  as  I 
could  recommend  or  support.  We  have  not  offended,  and,  I  hope, 
we  do  not  intend  to  offend,  in  regard  to  South  America,  against  any 
principle  of  national  independence  or  of  public  law.  W"e  have  done 
nothing,  we  shall  do  nothing,  that  we  need  to  hush  up  or  to  com- 
promise, by  forbearing  to  express  our  sympathy  for  the  cause  of 
the  Greeks,  or  our  opinion  of  the  course  which  other  governments 
have  adopted  in  regard  to  them. 


253 

It  may,  in  the  next  place,  be  asked,  perhaps,  supposing  all  this 
to  be  true,  what  can  we  do?  Are  we  to  go  to  war?  Are  we  to  in- 
terfere in  the  Greek  cause,  or  any  other  European  cause?  Are  we 
to  endanger  our  pacific  relations? — No,  certainly  not.  What,  then, 
the  question  recurs,  remains  for  us?  If  we  will  not  endanger  our 
own  peace;  if  we  will  neither  furnish  armies,  nor  navies,  to  the 
cause  which  we  think  the  just  one,  what  is  there  within  our  power? 

Sir,  this  reasoning  mistakes  the  age.  The  time  has  been,  indeed, 
when  fleets,  and  armies,  and  subsidies,  were  the  principal  reliances 
even  in  the  best  cause.  But,  happily  for  mankind,  there  has  arrived 
a  great  change  in  this  respect.  Moral  causes  come  into  consider- 
ation, in  proportion  as  the  progress  of  knowledge  is  advanced;  and 
the  public  opinion  of  the  civilized  world  is  rapidly  gaining  an  ascen- 
dency over  mere  brutal  force.  It  is  already  able  to  oppose  the  most 
formidable  obstruction  to  the  progress  of  injustice  and  oppression; 
and,  as  it  grows  more  intelligent  and  more  intense,  it  will  be  more 
and  more  formidable.  It  may  be  silenced  by  military  power,  but  it 
cannot  be  conquered.  It  is  elastic,  irrepressible,  and  invulnerable 
to  the  weapons  of  ordinary  warfare.  It  is  that  impassable,  unex 
tinguishable  enemy  of  mere  violence  and  arbitrary  rule,  which,  like 
Milton's  angels, 

"  Vital  in  every  part, 
Cannot,  but  by  annihilating,  die." 

Until  this  be  propitiated  or  satisfied,  it  is  vain  for  power  to  talk 
either  of  triumphs  or  of  repose.  No  matter  what  fields  are  desola- 
ted, what  fortresses  surrendered,  what  armies  subdued,  or  what,  pro- 
vinces overrun.  In  the  history  of  the  year  that  has  passed  by  us, 
and  in  the  instance  of  unhappy  Spain,  we  have  seen  the  vanity  of  all 
triumphs,  in  a  cause  which  violates  the  general  sense  of  justice  of 
the  civilized  world.  It  is  nothing,  that  the  troops  of  France  have 
passed  from  the  Pyrenees  to  Cadiz;  it  is  nothing  that  an  unhappy 
and  prostrate  nation  has  fallen  before  them;  it  is  nothing  that  arrests, 
and  confiscation,  and  execution,  sweep  away  the  little  remnant  of 
national  resistance.  There  is  an  enemy  that  still  exists  to  check 
the  glory  of  these  triumphs.  It  follows  the  conqueror  back  to  the 
very  scene  of  his  ovations;  it  calls  upon  him  to  take  notice  that  Eu- 
rope, though  silent,  is  yet  indignant;  it  shows  him  that  the  sceptre 
of  his  victory  is  a  barren  sceptre;  that  it  shall  confer  neither  joy  nor 
honor,  but  shall  moulder  to  dry  ashes  in  his  grasp.  In  the  midst  of 
his  exultation,  it  pierces  his  ear  with  the  cry  of  injured  justice,  it 
denounces  against  him  the  indignation  of  an  enlightened  and  civil- 
ized age;  it  turns  to  bitterness  the  cup  of  his  rejoicing,  and  wounds 
him  with  the  sting  which  belongs  to  the  consciousness  of  having 
outraged  the  opinion  of  mankind. 

In  my  own  opinion,  sir,  the  Spanish  nation  is  now  nearer,  not  only 
m  point  of  time,  but  in  point  of  circumstance,  to  the  acquisition  of 
a  regulated  government,  than  at  the  moment  of  the  French  invasion.. 
Nations  must,  no  doubt,  undergo  these  trials  in  their  progress  to  the 
establishment  of  free  institutions.  The  very  trials  benefit  them,  and 
render  them  more  capable  both  of  obtaining  and  of  enjoying  the  ob- 
ject which  they  seek. 

x 


254 

I  shall  not  detain  the  Committee,  sir,  by  laying  before  it  any 
statistical,  geographical,  or  commercial  account  of  Greece.  I  have 
no  knowledge  on  these  subjects,  which  is  not  common  to  all.  It  is 
universally  admitted,  that,  within  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years,  the 
condition  of  Greece  has  been  greatly  improved.  Her  marine  is  at 
present  respectable,  containing  the  best  sailors  in  the  Mediterranean, 
better  even,  in  that  sea,  than  our  own,  as  more  .accustomed  to  the  long 
quarantines,  and  other  regulations  which  prevail  in  its  ports.  The 
number  of  her  seamen  has  been  estimated  as  high  as  50,000,  but  T 
suppose  that  estimate  must  be  much  too  large.  They  have  proba- 
bly 150,000  tons  of  shipping.  It  is  not  easy  to  state  an  accurate 
account  of  Grecian  population.  The  Turkish  government  does  not 
trouble  itself  with  any  of  the  calculations  of  political  economy,  and 
there  has  never  been  such  a  thing  as  an  accurate  census,  probably, 
in  any  part  of  the  Turkish  empire.  In  the  absence  of  all  official 
information,  private  opinions  widely  differ.  By  the  tables  which 
have  been  communicated,  it  would  seem  that  there  are  2,400,000 
Greeks  in  Greece  proper  and  the  Islands;  an  amount,  as  I  am  in- 
clined to  think,  somewhat  overrated.  There  are,  probably,  in  the 
whole  of  European  Turkey,  5,000,000  Greeks,  and  2,000,000  more 
in  the  Asiatic  dominions  of  that  power.  The  moral  and  intellect- 
ual progress  of  this  numerous  population,  under  the  horrible  op- 
pression which  crushes  it,  has  been  such  as  may  well  excite  regard. 
Slaves,  under  barbarous  masters,  the  Greeks  have  still  aspired  after 
the  blessings  of  knowledge  and  civilisation.  Before  the  breaking 
out  of  the  present  revolution,  they  had  established  schools,  and 
colleges,  and  libraries,  and  the  press.  Wherever,  as  in  Scio, 
owing  to  particular  circumstances,  the  weight  of  oppression  was 
mitigated,  the  natural  vivacity  of  the  Greeks,  and  their  aptitude  for 
the  arts,  were  discovered.  Though  certainly  not  on  an  equality 
with  the  civilized  and  Christian  states  of  Europe,  and  how  is  it  pos- 
sible under  such  oppression  as  they  endured  that  they  should  be? 
they  yet  furnished  a  striking  contrast  with  their  Tartar  masters. 
It  has  been  well  said,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  form  a  just  conception 
of  the  nature  of  the  despotism  exercised  over  them.  Conquest  and 
subjugation,  as  known  among  European  states,  are  inadequate 
modes  of  expression  by  which  to  denote  the  dominion  of  the  Turks 
A  conquest,  in  the  civilized  world,  is  generally  no  more  than  an 
acquisition  of  a  new  dominion  to  the  conquering  country.  It  does 
not  imply  a  never-ending  bondage  imposed  upon  the  conquered,  a 
perpetual  mark,  and  opprobrious  distinction  between  them  and  their 
masters;  a  bitter  and  unending  persecution  of  their  religion;  an  ha- 
bitual violation  of  their  rights  of  person  and  property,  and  the  un- 
restrained indulgence  towards  them,  of  every  passion  which  belongs 
to  the  character  of  a  barbarous  soldiery.  Yet,  such  is  the  state  of 
Greece.  The  Ottoman  power  over  them,  obtained  originally  by  the 
sword,  is  constantly  preserved  by  the  same  means.  Wherever  it 
exists,  it  is  a  mere  military  power.  The  religious  and  civil  code  of 
the  state,  being  both  fixed  in  the  Alcoran,  and  equally  the  object  of 
an  ignorant  and  furious  faith,  have  been  found  equally  incapable  of 
change.  "  The  Turk,"  it  has  been  said,  "  has  been  encamped  in 
Europe  for  four  centuries."     He  has  hardly  any  more  participation 


255 

in  European  manners,  knowledge,  and  arts,  than  when  he  crossed 
the  Bosphorus.  But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  The  power  of  the 
empire  is  fallen  into  anarchy,  and  as  the  principle  which  belongs  to 
the  head  belongs  also  to  the  parts,  there  are  as  many  despots  as 
there  are  pachas,  beys,  and  visiers.  Wars  are  almost  perpetual, 
between  the  sultan  and  some  rebellious  governor  of  a  province;  and 
in  the  conflict  of  these  despotisms,  the  people  are  necessarily  ground 
between  the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone.  In  short,  the  Chris- 
tian subjects  of  the  sublime  Porte,  feel  daily  all  the  miseries  which 
flow  from  despotism,  from  anarchy,  from  slavery,  and  from  religious 
persecution.  If  anything  yet  remains  to  heighten  such  a  picture, 
let  it  be  added,  that  every  office  in  the  government  is  not  only 
actually,  but  professedly,  venal; — the  pachalics,  the  visierates,  the 
cadiships,  and  whatsoever  other  denomination  may  denote  the  de- 
positary of  power.  In  the  whole  world,  sir,  there  is  no  such  op- 
pression/eft, as  by  the  Christian  Greeks.  In  various  parts  of  India, 
to  be  sure,  the  government  is  bad  enough;  but  then  it  is  the  govern- 
ment of  barbarians  over  barbarians,  and  the  feeling  of  oppression  is, 
of  course,  not  so  keen.  There  the  oppressed  are  perhaps  not  bet- 
ter than  their  oppressors;  but  in  the  case  of  Greece,  there  are  mil- 
lions of  Christian  men,  not  without  knowledge,  not  without  refine- 
ment, not  without  a  strong  thirst  for  all  the  pleasures  of  civilized 
life,  trampled  into  the  very  earth,  century  after  century,  by  a  pil- 
laging, savage,  relentless  soldiery.  Sir,  the  case  is  unique.  There 
exists,  and  has  existed,  nothing  like  it.  The  world  has  no  such 
misery  to  show;  there  is  no  case  in  which  Christian  communities  can 
be  called  upon,  with  such  emphasis  of  appeal. 

But  I  have  said  enough,  Mr.  Chairman,  indeed  I  need  have  said 
nothing,  to  satisfy  the  House,  that  it  must  be  some  new  combination 
of  circumstances,  or  new  views  of  policy  in  the  cabinets  of  Europe, 
which  have  caused  this  interesting  struggle  not  merely  to  be  re- 
garded with  indifference,  but  to  be  marked  with  opprobrium.  The 
very  statement  of  the  case,  as  a  contest  between  the  Turks  and 
Greeks,  sufficiently  indicates  what  must  be  the  feeling  of  every 
individual,  and  every  government,  that  is  not  biassed  by  a  particular 
interest,  or  a  particular  feeling,  to  disregard  the  dictates  of  justice 
and  humanity. 

And  now,  sir,  what  has  been  the  conduct  pursued  by  the  Allied 
Powers,  in  regard  to  this  contest?  When  the  revolution  broke  out, 
the  sovereigns  were  in  Congress  at  Lay  bach;  and  the  papers  of  that 
assembly  sufficiently  manifest  their  sentiments.  They  proclaimed 
their  abhorrence  of  those  "  criminal  combinations  which  had  been 
formed  in  the  eastern  parts  of  Europe;"  and,  although  it  is  possible 
that  this  denunciation  was  aimed,  more  particularly,  at  the  distur- 
bances in  the  provinces  of  Wallachia  and  Moldavia,  yet  no  excep- 
tion is  made,  from  its  general  terms,  in  favor  of  those  events  in 
Greece,  which  were  properly  the  commencement  of  her  revolution, 
and  which  could  not  but  be  well  known  at  Laybach,  before  the  date 
of  these  declarations.  Now  it  must  be  remembered,  that  Russia 
was  a  leading  party  in  this  denunciation  of  the  efforts  of  the  Greeks 
to  achieve  their  liberation;  and  it  cannot  but  be  expected  by  Russia 
that  the  world  shall  also  remember  what  part  she  herself  has  here- 


256 

tofore  acted,  in  the  same  concern.  It  is  notorious,  that  within  the 
last  half  century  she  has  again  and  again,  excited  the  Greeks  to  re- 
bellion against  the  Porte,  and  that  she  has  constantly  kept  alive  in 
them  the  hope  that  she  would,  one  day,  by  her  own  great  power, 
break  the  yoke  of  their  oppressor.  Indeed,  the  earnest  attention 
with  which  Russia  has  regarded  Greece,  goes  much  farther  back 
than  to  the  time  I  have  mentioned.  Ivan  the  third,  in  1482,  having 
espoused  a  Grecian  princess,  heiress  of  the  last  Greek  emperor, 
discarded  St.  George  from  the  Russian  arms,  and  adopted  in  its 
stead  the  Greek  two-headed  black  eagle,  which  has  continued  in  the 
Russian  arms  to  the  present  day.  In  virtue  of  the  same  marriage, 
the  Russian  princes  claimed  the  Greek  throne  as  their  inheritance. 
Under  Peter  the  Great,  the  policy  of  Russia  developed  itself 
more  fully.  In  1696,  he  rendered  himself  master  of  Azoph,  and  in 
1698,  obtained  the  right  to  pass  the  Dardanelles,  and  to  maintain, 
by  that  route,  commercial  intercourse  with  the  Mediterranean.  He 
had  emissaries  throughout  Greece,  and  particularly  applied  himself 
to  gain  the  clergy.  He  adopted  the  Labarum  of  Constantine,  "  In 
hoc  signo  vinces;"  and  medals  were  struck,  with  the  inscription, 
"  Petrus  I.  Russo-Grcecorum  Imperator."  In  whatever  new  direction 
the  principles  of  the  Holy  Alliance  may  now  lead  the  politics  of 
Russia,  or  whatever  course  she  may  suppose  Christianity  now  pre- 
scribes to  her,  in  regard  to  the  Greek  cause,  the  time  has  been  when 
she  professed  to  be  contending  for  that  cause,  as  identified  with 
Christianity.  The  white  banner  under  which  the  soldiers  of  Peter 
the  first  usually  fought,  bore,  as  its  inscription,  "  In  the  name  of  the 
Prince,  and  for  our  country."  Relying  on  the  aid  of  the  Greeks,  in 
his  war  with  the  Porte,  he  changed  the  white  flag  to  red,  and  dis- 
played on  it  the  words,  "  In  the  name  of  God,  and  for  Christianity." 
The  unfortunate  issue  of  this  war  is  well  known.  Though  Anne 
and  Elizabeth,  the  successors  of  Peter,  did  not  possess  his  active 
character,  they  kept  up  a  constant  communication  with  Greece,  and 
held  out  hopes  of  restoring  the  Greek  empire.  Catharine  the  sec- 
ond, as  is  well  known,  excited  a  general  revolt  in  1769.  A  Russian 
fleet  appeared  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  a  Russian  army  was  landed 
in  the  Morea.  The  Greeks  in  the  end  were  disgusted  by  being  re- 
quired to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  Russia,  and  the  empress  was 
disgusted  because  they  refused  to  take  it.  In  1774,  peace  was 
signed  between  Russia  and  the  Porte,  and  the  Greeks  of  the  Morea 
were  left  to  their  fate.  By  this  treaty  the  Porte  acknowledged  the 
independence  of  the  khan  of  the  Crimea;  a  preliminary  step  to  the 
acquisition  of  that  country  by  Russia.  It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark, 
as  a  circumstance  which  distinguished  this  from  most  other  diplo- 
matic transactions,  that  it  conceded  the  right  to  the  cabinet  of  St. 
Petersburg,  of  intervention  in  the  interior  affairs  of  Turkey,  in  re- 
gard to  whatever  concerned  the  religion  of  the  Greeks.  The  cruel- 
ties and  massacres  that  happened  to  the  Greeks  after  the  peace  be- 
tween Russia  and  the  Porte,  notwithstanding  the  general  pardon 
which  had  been  stipulated  for  them,  need  not  now  to  be  recited. 
Instead  of  retracing  the  deplorable  picture,  it  is  enough  to  say, 
that  in  this  respect  the  past  is  justly  reflected  in  the  present.  The 
empress  soon  after  invaded  and  conquered  the  Crimea,  and  on  one 


257 

of  the  gates  of  Kerson,  its  capital,  caused  to  be  inscribed,  "  The 
road  to  Bysantium."  The  present  Emperor,  on  his  accession  to  the 
throne,  manifested  an  intention  to  adopt  the  policy  of  Catharine  the 
II.  as  his  own,  and  the  world  has  not  been  right,  in  all  its  suspicions, 
if  a  project  for  the  partition  of  Turkey  did  not  form  a  part  of  the 
negotiations  of  Napoleon  and  Alexander  at  Tilsit. 

All  this  course  of  policy  seems  suddenly  to  be  changed.  Turkey 
is  no  longer  regarded,  it  would  appear,  as  an  object  of  partition  or 
acquisition,  and  Greek  revolts  have,  all  at  once,  become,  according 
to  the  declaration  of  Laybach,  "  criminal  combinations."  The  re- 
cent congress  at  Verona  exceeded  its  predecessor  at  Laybach,  in  its 
denunciations  of  the  Greek  struggle.  In  the  circular  of  the  14th 
of  December,  1822,  it  declared  the  Grecian  resistance  to  the  Turkish 
power  to  be  rash  and  culpable,  and  lamented  that  "  the  firebrand  of 
rebellion  had  been  thrown  into  the  Ottoman  empire."  This  rebuke 
and  crimination,  we  know  to  have  proceeded  on  those  settled  princi- 
ples of  conduct,  which  the  continental  powers  had  prescribed  for 
themselves.  The  sovereigns  saw,  as  well  as  others,  the  real  condi- 
tion of  the  Greeks;  they  knew,  as  well  as  others,  that  it  was  most 
natural  and  most  justifiable,  that  they  should  endeavour,  at  whatever 
hazard,  to  change  that  condition.  They  knew,  that  they,  themselves, 
or  at  least  one  of  them,  had  more  than  once  urged  the  Greeks  to  sim- 
ilar efforts;  that  they,  themselves,  had  thrown  the  same  firebrand  into 
the  midst  of  the  Ottoman  empire.  And  yet,  so  much  does  it  seem  to 
be  their  fixed  object  to  discountenance  whatsoever  threatens  to  dis- 
turb the  actual  government  of  any  country,  that,  Christians  as  they 
were,  and  allied  as  they  professed  to  be,  for  purposes  most  important 
to  human  happiness  and  religion,  they  have  not  hesitated  to  declare 
to  the  world,  that  they  have  wholly  forborne  to  exercise  any  com- 
passion to  the  Greeks,  simply  because  they  thought  that  they  saw,  in 
the  struggles  of  the  Morea,  the  sign  of  revolution.  This,  then,  is 
coming  to  a  plain,  practical  result.  The  Grecian  revolution  has  been 
discouraged,  discountenanced,  and  denounced,  for  no  reason  but  be- 
cause it  is  a  revolution.  Independent  of  all  inquiry  into  the  reason- 
ableness of  its  causes,  or  the  enormity  of  the  oppression  which 
produced  it;  regardless  of  the  peculiar  claims  which  Greece  posses- 
ses upon  the  civilized  world;  and  regardless  of  what  has  been  their 
own  conduct  towards  her  for  a  century;  regardless  of  the  interest  of 
the  Christian  religion,  the  sovereigns  at  Verona  seized  upon  the  case 
of  the  Greek  revolution,  as  one  above  all  others  calculated  to  illus- 
trate the  fixed  principles  of  their  policy.  The  abominable  rule  of 
the  Porte  on  one  side,  the  valor  and  the  sufferings  of  the  Christian 
Greeks  on  the  other,  furnished  a  case  likely  to  convince  even  an  in- 
credulous world  of  the  sincerity  of  the  professions  of  the  Allied 
Powers.  They  embraced  the  occasion,  with  apparent  ardor;  and 
the  world,  I  trust,  is  satisfied. 

We  see  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  direct  and  actual  application  of 
that  system  which  I  have  attempted  to  describe.  We  see  it  in  the 
very  case  of  Greece.  We  learn,  authentically  and  indisputably, 
that  the  Allied  Powers,  holding  that  all  changes  in  legislation  and 
administration  ought  to  proceed  from  kings  alone,  were  wholly  in- 
exorable to  the  sufferings  of  the  Greeks,  and  wholly  hostile  to  their 
33  x* 


258 

.success  Now  it  is  upon  this  practical  result  of  the  principle  of  the 
continental  powers,  that  I  wish  this  House  to  intimate  its  opinion. 
The  great  question  is  a  question  of  principle.  Greece  is  only  the 
signal  instance  of  the  application  of  that  principle.  If  the  principle 
be  right,  if  we  esteem  it  conformable  to  the  law  of  nations,  if  we 
have  nothing  to  say  against  it,  or  if  we  deem  ourselves  unfit  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  on  the  subject,  then,  of  course,  no  resolution  ought 
to  pass.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  see  in  the  declarations  of  the 
Allied  Powers,  principles  not  only  utterly  hostile  to  our  own  free  in- 
stitutions, but  hostile  also  to  the  independence  of  all  nations,  and 
altogether  opposed  to  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  human 
nature;  if,  in  the  instance  before  us,  we  see  a  most  striking  exposi- 
tion and  application  of  those  principles,  and  if  we  deem  our  own 
opinions  to  be  entitled  to  any  weight  in  the  estimation  of  mankind; 
then,  I  think,  it  is  our  duty  to  adopt  some  such  measure  as  the  pro 
posed  resolution. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  sir,  that  as  early  as  July,  1821,  Baron 
Strogonoff,  the  Russian  minister  at  Constantinople,  represented  to 
the  Porte,  that,  if  the  undistinguished  massacres  of  the  Greeks, 
both  of  such  as  were  in  open  resistance,  and  of  those  who  remain- 
ed patient  in  their  submission,  were  continued,  and  should  become 
a  settled  habit,  they  would  give  just  cause  of  war  against  the  Porte 
to  all  Christian  states.  This  was  in  1821.  It  was  followed,  early 
in  the  next  year,  by  that  indescribable  enormity,  that  appalling  mon- 
ument of  barbarian  cruelty,  the  destruction  of  Scio;  a  scene  I  shall 
not  attempt  to  describe;  a  scene  from  which  human  nature  shrinks 
shuddering  away;  a  scene  having  hardly  a  parallel  in  the  history  of 
fallen  man.  This  scene,  too,  was  quickly  followed  by  the  massacres 
in  Cyprus;  and  all  these  things  were  perfectly  known  to  the  Christian 
powers  assembled  at  Verona.  Yet  these  powers,  instead  of  acting 
upon  the  case  supposed  by  Baron  Strogonoff,  and  which,  one  would 
think,  had  been  then  fully  made  out;  instead  of  being  moved  by  any 
•compassion  for  the  sufferings  of  the  Greeks;  these  powers,  these 
Christian  powers,  rebuke  their  gallantry,  and  insult  their  suffer- 
ings, by  accusing  them  of  "  throwing  a  firebrand  into  the  Ottoman 
empire. " 

Such,  sir,  appear  to  me  to  be  the  principles  on  which  the  conti 
nental  powers  of  Europe  have  agreed  hereafter  to  act;  and  this,  an 
eminent  instance  of  the  application  of  those  principles. 

I  shall  not  detain  the  Committee,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  any  attempt 
to  recite  the  events  of  the  Greek  struggle,  up  to  the  present  time 
Its  origin  may  be  found,  doubtless,  in  that  improved  state  of  know- 
ledge, which,  for  some  years,  has  been  gradually  taking  place  in  that 
country.  The  emancipation  of  the  Greeks  has  been  a  subject  fre- 
quently discussed  in  modern  times.  They  themselves  are  represented 
as  having  a  vivid  remembrance  of  the  distinction  of  their  ancestors, 
not  unmixed  with  an  indignant  feeling,  that  civilized  and  Christian 
Europe  should  not,  ere  now,  have  aided  them  in  breaking  their  in- 
tolerable fetters. 

In  1816,  a  society  was  founded  in  Vienna,  for  the  encouragement 
of  Grecian  literature.  It  was  connected  with  a  similar  institution 
at  Athens,  and  another  in  Thessaly,  called  the  "  Gymnasium  of 


259 

Mount  Pelion."  The  treasury  and  general  office  of  the  institution 
was  established  at  Munich.  No  political  object  was  avowed  by 
these  institutions,  probably  none  contemplated.  Still,  however,  they 
have,  no  doubt,  had  their  effect  in  hastening  that  condition  of  things, 
in  which  the  Greeks  felt  competent  to  the  establishment  of  their  in- 
dependence. Many  young  men  have  been,  for  years,  annually  sent 
to  the  universities  in  the  western  states  of  Europe  for  their  education; 
and,  after  the  general  pacification  of  Europe,  many  military  men, 
discharged  from  other  employment,  were  ready  to  enter  even  into 
so  unpromising  a  service  as  that  of  the  revolutionary  Greeks. 

In  1820,  war  commenced  between  the  Porte  and  Ali,  the  well 
known  pacha  of  Albania.  Differences  existed  also  with  Persia,  and 
with  Russia.  In  this  state  of  things,  at  the  beginning  of  1821,  an 
insurrection  appears  to  have  broken  out  in  Moldavia,  under  the 
direction  of  Alexander  Ypsilanti,  a  well  educated  soldier,  who  had 
been  major-general  in  the  Russian  service.  From  his  character, 
and  the  number  of  those  who  seemed  disposed  to  join  him,  he  was 
supposed  to  be  countenanced  by  the  court  of  St.  Petersburg.  This, 
however,  was  a  great  mistake,  which  the  emperor,  then  at  Laybach, 
took  an  early  opportunity  to  rectify.  The  Porte,  it  would  seem, 
however,  alarmed  at  these  occurrences  in  the  northern  provinces, 
caused  search  to  be  made  of  all  vessels  entering  the  Black  Sea,  lest 
arms  or  other  military  means  should  be  sent  in  that  manner  to  the 
insurgents.  This  proved  inconvenient  to  the  commerce  of  Russia, 
and  caused  some  unsatisfactory  correspondence  between  the  two 
powers.  It  may  be  worthy  of  remark,  as  an  exhibition  of  national 
character,  that,  agitated  by  these  appearances  of  intestine  commo- 
tion, the  sultan  issued  a  proclamation,  calling  on  all  true  mussulmans 
to  renounce  the  pleasures  of  social  life,  to  prepare  arms  and  horses, 
and  to  return  to  the  manner  of  their  ancestors,  the  life  of  the  plains. 
The  Turk  seems  to  have  thought  that  he  had,  at  last,  caught  some- 
thing of  the  dangerous  contagion  of  European  civilisation,  and  that 
it  was  necessary  to  reform  his  habits,  by  recurring  to  the  original 
manners  of  military  roving  barbarians. 

It  was  about  this  time,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  commencement  of 
1821,  that  the  Revolution  burst  out  in  various  parts  of  Greece  and 
the  Isles.  Circumstances,  certainly,  were  not  unfavorable,  as  one 
portion  of  the  Turkish  army  was  employed  in  the  war  against  Ali 
Pacha  in  Albania,  and  another  part  in  the  provinces  north  of  the 
Danube.  The  Greeks  soon  possessed  themselves  of  the  open 
country  of  the  Morea,  and  drove  their  enemy  into  the  fortresses. 
Of  these,  that  of  Tripolitza,  with  the  city,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Greeks,  in  the  course  of  the  summer.  Having  after  these  first 
movements  obtained  time  to  breathe,  it  became,  of  course,  an  early 
object  to  establish  a  government.  For  this  purpose  delegates  of 
the  people  assembled,  under  that  name  which  describes  the  assem- 
bly in  which  we  ourselves  sit,  that  name  which  "  freed  the  Atlan- 
tic," a  Congress.  A  writer,  who  undertakes  to  render  to  the  civil- 
ized world  that  service  which  was  once  performed  by  Edmund 
Burke,  I  mean  the  compiler  of  the  English  Annual  Register,  asks, 
by  what  authority  this  assembly  could  call  itself  a  Congress.  Simply, 
sir,  by  the  same  authority,  by  which  the  people  of  the  United  States 


260 

have  given  the  same  name  to  their  own  legislature.  We,  at  least, 
should  be  naturally  inclined  to  think,  not  only  as  far  as  names,  but 
things  also,  are  concerned,  that  the  Greeks  could  hardly  have  be- 
gun their  revolution  under  better  auspices;  since  they  have  endeav- 
oured to  render  applicable  to  themselves  the  general  principles  of 
our  form  of  government,  as  well  as  its  name.  This  constitution 
Went  into  operation  at  the  commencement  of  the  next  year.  In 
the  meantime,  the  war  with  Ali  Pacha  was  ended,  he  having  sur- 
rendered, and  being  afterwards  assassinated,  by  an  instance  of 
treachery  and  perfidy,  which,  if  it  had  happened  elsewhere  than 
under  the  government  of  the  Turks,  would  have  deserved  notice. 
The  negotiation  with  Russia,  too,  took  a  turn  unfavorable  to  the 
Greeks.  The  great  point  upon  which  Russia  insisted,  beside  the 
abandonment  of  the  measure  of  searching  vessels  bound  to  the 
Black  Sea,  was,  that  the  Porte  should  withdraw  its  armies  from  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Russian  frontiers;  and  the  immediate  conse- 
quence of  this,  when  effected,  was  to  add  so  much  more  to  the  dis- 
posable force,  ready  to  be  employed  against  the  Greeks.  These 
events  seemed  to  have  left  the  whole  force  of  the  Empire,  at  the 
commencement  of  1822,  in  a  condition  to  be  employed  against  the 
Greek  rebellion;  and,  accordingly,  very  many  anticipated  the  im- 
mediate destruction  of  their  cause.  The  event,  however,  was  or- 
dered otherwise.  Where  the  greatest  effort  was  made,  it  was  met 
and  defeated.  Entering  the  Morea  with  an  army  which  seemed 
capable  of  bearing  down  all  resistance,  the  Turks  were  nevertheless 
defeated  and  driven  back,  and  pursued  beyond  the  isthmus,  within 
which,  as  far  as  it  appears,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  they  have 
not  been  able  to  set  their  foot. 

It  was  in  April,  of  this  year,  that  the  destruction  of  Scio  took 
place.  That  island,  a  sort  of  appanage  of  the  Sultana  mother,  en- 
joyed many  privileges  peculiar  to  itself.  In  a  population  of  130,000 
or  140,000,  it  had  no  more  than  2000  or  3000  Turks;  indeed,  by 
some  accounts,  not  near  as  many.  The  absence  of  these  ruffian 
masters,  had,  in  some  degree,  allowed  opportunity  for  the  promotion 
of  knowledge,  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  and  the  general  cultiva- 
tion of  society.  Here  was  the  seat  of  the  modern  Greek  literature, 
here  were  libraries,  printing  presses,  and  other  establishments,  which 
indicate  some  advancement  in  refinement  and  knowledge.  Certain 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Samos,  it  would  seem,  envious  of  this  com- 
parative happiness  of  Scio,  landed  upon  the  island,  in  an  irregular 
multitude,  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  its  inhabitants  to  make 
common  cause  with  their  countrymen  against  their  oppressors. 
These,  being  joined  by  the  peasantry,  marched  to  the  city,  and 
drove  the  Turks  into  the  castle.  The  Turkish  fleet,  lately  reenfor- 
ced  from  Egypt,  happened  to  be  in  the  neighbouring  seas,  and 
learning  these  events,  landed  a  force  on  the  island  of  15,000  men 
There  was  nothing  to  resist  such  an  army.  These  troops  immedi 
ately  entered  the  city,  and  began  an  indiscriminate  massacre.  The 
city  was  fired;  and,  in  four  days,  the  fire  and  the  sword  of  the  Turk, 
rendered  the  beautiful  Scio  a  clotted  mass  of  blood  and  ashes. 
The  details  are  too  shocking  to  be  recited.  Forty  thousand  women 
and  children,  unhappily  saved  from  the  general  destruction,  were 


261 

afterwards  sold  in  the  market  of  Smyrna,  and  sent  off  into  distant 
and  hopeless  servitude.  Even  on  the  wharves  of  our  own  cities,  it 
has  been  said,  have  been  sold  the  utensils  of  those  hearths  which 
now  exist  no  longer.  Of  the  whole  population  which  I  have  men- 
tioned, not  above  900  persons  were  left  living  upon  the  island.  I 
will  only  repeat,  sir,  that  these  tragical  scenes  were  as  fully  known 
at  the  Congress  of  Verona,  as  they  are  now  known  to  us;  and  it  is 
not  too  much  to  call  on  the  powers  that  constituted  that  Congress, 
in  the  name  of  conscience,  and  in  the  name  of  humanity,  to  tell  us, 
if  there  be  nothing  even  in  these  unparalleled  excesses  of  Turk- 
ish barbarity,  to  excite  a  sentiment  of  compassion;  nothing  which 
they  regard  as  so  objectionable  as  even  the  very  idea  of  popular  re- 
sistance to  power. 

The  events  of  the  year  which  has  just  passed  by,  as  far  as  they 
have  become  known  to  us,  have  been  even  more  favorable  to  the 
Greeks,  than  those  of  the  year  preceding.  I  omit  all  details,  as 
being  as  well  known  to  others  as  to  myself.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that 
with  no  other  enemy  to  contend  with,  and  no  diversion  of  his  force 
to  other  objects,  the  Porte  has  not  been  able  to  carry  the  war  into 
the  Morea;  and  that,  by  the  last  accounts,  its  armies  were  acting 
defensively  in  Thessaly.  I  pass  over  also  the  naval  engagements 
of  the  Greeks,  although  that  is  a  mode  of  warfare  in  which  they 
are  calculated  to  excel,  and  in  which  they  have  already  performed 
actions  of  such  distinguished  skill  and  bravery,  as  would  draw  ap- 
plause upon  the  best  mariners  in  the  world.  The  present  state  of 
the  war  would  seem  to  be,  that  the  Greeks  possess  the  whole  of 
the  Morea,  with  the  exception  of  the  three  fortresses  of  Patras, 
Coron  and  Modon;  all  Candia,  but  one  fortress;  and  most  of  the 
other  islands.  They  possess  the  citadel  of  Athens,  Missolunghi, 
and  several  other  places  in  Livadia.  They  have  been  able  to  act 
on  the  offensive  and  to  carry  the  war  beyond  the  isthmus.  There 
is  no  reason  to  believe  their  marine  is  weakened;  probably,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  strengthened.  But,  what  is  most  of  all  impor- 
tant, they  have  obtained  time  and  experience.  They  have  awaken- 
ed a  sympathy  throughout  Europe  and  throughout  America;  and 
they  have  formed  a  government  which  seems  suited  to  the  emer 
gency  of  their  condition. 

Sir,  they  have  done  much.  It  would  be  great  injustice  to  com- 
pare their  achievements  with  our  own.  We  began  our  revolution, 
already  possessed  of  government,  and,  comparatively,  of  civil  liberty. 
Our  ancestors  had,  for  centuries,  been  accustomed  in  a  great  mea- 
sure to  govern  themselves.  They  were  well  acquainted  with  popu- 
lar elections  and  legislative  assemblies,  and  the  general  principles 
and  practice  of  free  governments.  They  had  little  else  to  do  than 
to  throw  off  the  paramount  authority  of  the  parent  state.  Enough 
was  still  left,  both  of  law  and  of  organization,  to  conduct  society  in 
its  accustomed  course,  and  to  unite  men  together  for  a  common  ob- 
ject. The  Greeks,  of  course,  could  act  with  little  concert  at  the 
beginning;  they  were  unaccustomed  to  the  exercise  of  power,  with- 
out experience,  with  limited  knowledge,  without  aid,  and  surrounded 
by  nations,  which,  whatever  claims  the  Greeks  might  seem  to  have 
had  upon  them,  have  afforded  them  nothing  but  discouragement  and 


262 

reproach.  They  have  held  out,  however,  for  three  campaigns;  and 
that,  at  least,  is  something.  Constantinople  and  the  northern  pro- 
vinces have  sent  forth  thousands  of  troops; — they  have  been  defeat- 
ed. Tripoli,  and  Algiers,  and  Egypt,  have  contributed  their  marine 
contingents; — they  have  not  kept  the  ocean.  Hordes  of  Tartars 
have  crossed  the  Bosphorus; — they  have  died  where  the  Persians 
died.  The  powerful  monarchies  in  the  neighbourhood  have  denoun- 
ced their  cause,  and  admonished  them  to  abandon  it,  and  submit  to 
their  fate.  They  have  answered  them,  that,  although  two  hundred 
thousand  of  their  countrymen  have  offered  up  their  lives,  there  yet 
remain  lives  to  offer;  and  that  it  is  the  determination  of  all,  "  yes,  of 
all,"  to  persevere  until  they  shall  have  established  their  liberty,  or 
until  the  power  of  their  oppressors  shall  have  relieved  them  from  the 
burden  of  existence. 

It  may  now  be  asked,  perhaps,  whether  the  expression  of  our  own 
sympathy,  and  that  of  the  country,  may  do  them  good?  I  hope  it 
may.  It  may  give  them  courage  and  spirit,  it  may  assure  them  of 
public  regard,  teach  them  that  they  are  not  wholly  forgotten  by  the 
civilized  world,  and  inspire  them  with  constancy  in  the  pursuit  of 
their  great  end.  At  any  rate,  sir,  it  appears  to  me,  that  the  measure 
which  I  have  proposed  is  due  to  our  own  character,  and  called  for 
by  our  own  duty.  When  we  shall  have  discharged  that  duty,  we 
may  leave  the  rest  to  the  disposition  of  Providence. 

I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  doubted,  that  this  measure  is  entirely 
pacific.  I  profess  my  inability  to  perceive  that  it  has  any  possible 
tendency  to  involve  our  neutral  relations.  If  the  resolution  pass,  it 
is  not,  necessarily,  to  be  immediately  acted  on.  It  will  not  be  acted 
on  at  all,  unless,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  a  proper  and  safe 
occasion  for  acting  upon  it  shall  arise.  If  we  adopt  the  resolution 
to-day,  our  relations  with  every  foreign  state  will  be  to-morrow  pre- 
cisely what  they  now  are.  The  resolution  will  be  sufficient  to  ex- 
press our  sentiments  on  the  subjects  to  which  I  have  adverted. 
Useful  to  that  purpose,  it  can  be  mischievous  to  no  purpose.  If  the 
topic  were  properly  introduced  into  the  Message,  it  cannot  be  im- 
properly introduced  into  discussion  in  this  House.  If  it  were  prop- 
er, which  no  one  doubts,  for  the  President  to  express  his  opinions 
upon  it,  it  cannot,  I  think,  be  improper  for  us  to  express  ours.  The 
only  certain  effect  of  this  resolution  is  to  express,  in  a  form  usual 
in  bodies  constituted  like  this,  our  approbation  of  the  general  senti- 
ment of  the  Message.  Do  we  wish  to  withhold  that  approbation? 
The  Resolution  confers  on  the  President  no  new  poiver,  nor  does  it  enjoin 
on  him  the  exercise  of  any  new  duty;  nor  does  it  hasten  him  in  the  dis- 
charge of  any  existing  duty. 

I  cannot  imagine  that  this  resolution  can  add  anything  to  those 
excitements  which  it  has  been  supposed,  I  think  very  causelessly, 
might  possibly  provoke  the  Turkish  government  to  acts  of  hostility 
There  is  already  the  Message,  expressing  the  hope  of  success  to 
the  Greeks,  and  disaster  to  the  Turks,  in  a  much  stronger  manner 
than  is  to  be  implied  from  the  terms  of  this  resolution.  There  is 
the  correspondence  between  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  Greek 
Agent  in  London,  already  made  public,  in  which  similar  wishes  are 
expressed,  and  a  continuance  of  the  correspondence  apparently  in- 


263 

vited.  I  might  add  to  this,  the  unexampled  burst  of  feeling  which  this 
cause  has  called  forth  from  all  classes  of  society,  and  the  notorious 
fact  of  pecuniary  contributions  made  throughout  the  country  for  its 
aid  and  advancement.  After  all  this,  whoever  can  see  cause  of 
danger  to  our  pacific  relations  from  the  adoption  of  this  resolution, 
has  a  keener  vision  than  I  can  pretend  to.  Sir,  there  is  no  aug- 
mented danger;  there  is  no  danger.  The  question  comes  at  last  to 
this,  whether,  on  a  subject  of  this  sort,  this  House  holds  an  opinion 
which  is  worthy  to  be  expressed? 

Even  suppose,  sir,  an  Agent  or  Commissioner  were  to  be  imme- 
diately sent, — a  measure  which  I  myself  believe  to  be  the  proper 
one, — there  is  no  breach  of  neutrality,  nor  any  just  cause  of  offence. 
Such  an  agent,  of  course,  would  not  be  accredited ;  he  would  not 
be  a  public  minister.  The  object  would  be  inquiry  and  information; 
inquiry,  which  we  have  a  right  to  make;  information,  which  we  are 
interested  to  possess.  If  a  dismemberment  of  the  Turkish  empire 
be  taking  place,  or  has  already  taken  place;  if  a  new  state  be  rising, 
or  be  already  risen,  in  the  Mediterranean,  who  can  doubt,  that, 
without  any  breach  of  neutrality,  we  may  inform  ourselves  of  these 
events,  for  the  government  of  our  own  concerns? 

The  Greeks  have  declared  the  Turkish  coasts  in  a  state  of  block- 
ade; may  we  not  inform  ourselves  whether  this  blockade  be  nominal 
or  reaU  And,  of  course,  whether  it  shall  be  regarded  or  disregarded  ? 
The  greater  our  trade  may  happen  to  be  with  Smyrna,  a  considera- 
tion which  seems  to  have  alarmed  some  gentlemen,  the  greater  is 
the  reason,  in  my  opinion,  why  we  should  seek  to  be  accurately  in- 
formed of  those  events  which  may  affect  its  safety. 

It  seems  to  me  impossible,  therefore,  for  any  reasonable  man  to 
imagine,  that  this  resolution  can  expose  us  to  the  resentment  of  the 
sublime  Porte. 

As  little  reason  is  there  for  fearing  its  consequences  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  Allied  Powers.  They  may,  very  naturally,  dislike  our 
sentiments  upon  the  subject  of  the  Greek  Revolution;  but  what  those 
sentiments  are,  they  will  much  more  explicitly  learn  in  the  Presi- 
dent's Message  than  in  this  resolution.  They  might,  indeed,  prefer 
that  we  should  express  no  dissent  upon  the  docftfhes  which  they  have 
avowed,  and  the  application  which  they  have  made  of  those  doctrines 
to  the  case  of  Greece.  But  I  trust  we  are  not  disposed  to  leave 
them  in  any  doubt  as  to  our  sentiments  upon  these  important  subjects. 
They  have  expressed  their  opinions,  and  do  not  call  that  expression 
of  opinion,  an  interference;  in  which  respect  they  are  right,  as  the 
expression  of  opinion,  in  such  cases,  is  not  such  an  interference  as 
would  justify  the  Greeks  in  considering  the  powers  as  at  war  with 
them.  For  the  same  reason,  any  expression  which  we  may  make, 
of  different  principles  and  different  sympathies,  is  no  interference. 
No  one  would  call  the  President's  Message  an  interference;  and  yet  it 
is  much  stronger,  in  that  respect,  than  this  resolution.  If  either  of 
them  could  be  construed  to  be  an  interference,  no  doubt  it  would  be 
improper,  at  least  it  would  be  so,  according  to  my  view  of  the  subject; 
for  the  very  thing  which  I  have  attempted  to  resist  in  the  course  of 
these  observations,  is  the  right  of  foreign  interference.  But  neither 
the  Message  nor  the  resolution  has  that  character.     There  is  not  a 


264 

power  in  Europe  that  can  suppose,  that,  in  expressing  our  opinions 
on  this  occasion,  we  are  governed  by  any  desire  of  aggrandizing 
ourselves,  or  of  injuring  others.  We  do  no  more  than  to  maintain 
those  established  principles,  in  which  we  have  an  interest  in  common 
with  other  nations,  and  to  resist  the  introduction  of  new  principles 
and  new  rules,  calculated  to  destroy  the  relative  independence  of 
states,  and  particularly  hostile  to  the  whole  fabric  of  our  own  gov- 
ernment. 

I  close,  then,  sir,  with  repeating,  that  the  object  of  this  resolution 
is,  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  interesting  occasion  of  the  Greek  revo- 
lution, to  make  our  protest  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Allied  Pow- 
ers; both  as  they  are  laid  down  in  principle,  and  as  they  are  applied 
in  practice. 

I  think  it  right  too,  sir,  not  to  be  unseasonable  in  the  expression 
of  our  regard,  and,  as  far  as  that  goes,  in  a  ministration  of  our  con- 
solation, to  a  long  oppressed  and  now  struggling  people.  I  am  not 
of  those  who  would  in  the  hour  of  utmost  peril,  withhold  such  en- 
couragement as  might  be  properly  and  lawfully  given,  and  when  the 
crisis  should  be  past,  overwhelm  the  rescued  sufferer  with  kindness 
and  caresses.  The  Greeks  address  the  civilized  world  with  a  pa- 
thos, not  easy  to  be  resisted.  They  invoke  our  favor  by  more 
moving  considerations  than  can  well  belong  to  the  condition  of  any 
other  people.  They  stretch  out  their  arms  to  the  Christian  commu- 
nities of  the  earth,  beseeching  them,  by  a  generous  recollection  of 
their  ancestors,  by  the  consideration  of  their  own  desolated  and 
ruined  cities  and  villages,  by  their  wives  and  children,  sold  into  an 
accursed  slavery,  by  their  own  blood,  which  they  seem  willing  to 
pour  out  like  water,  by  the  common  faith,  and  in  the  Name,  which 
unites  all  Christians,  that  they  would  extend  to  them,  at  least  some 
token  of  compassionate  regard. 


* 


SPEECH 


UPON  THE  TARIFF ;  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 
OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  APRIL,  1824. 


Mr.  Chairman, — I  will  avail  myself  of  the  present  occasion  to 
make  some  remarks  on  certain  principles  and  opinions  which  have 
been  recently  advanced,  and  on  those  considerations  which,  in  my 
judgment,  ought  to  govern  us  in  deciding  upon  the  several  and  re- 
spective parts  of  this  very  important  and  complex  measure.  I  can 
truly  say  that  this  is  a  painful  duty.  I  deeply  regret  the  necessity, 
which  is  likely  to  be  imposed  upon  me,  of  giving  a  general  affirma- 
tive or  negative  vote  on  the  whole  of  the  Bill.  I  cannot  but  think 
this  mode  of  proceeding  liable  to  great  objections.  It  exposes  both 
those  who  support,  and  those  who  oppose,  the  measure,  to  very  un- 
just and  injurious  misapprehensions.  There  may  be  good  reasons 
for  favoring  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  Bill,  and  equally  strong 
reasons  for  opposing  others;  and  these  provisions  do  not  stand  to 
each  other  in  the  relation  of  principal  and  incident.  If  that  were 
the  case,  those  who  are  in  favor  of  the  principal  might  forego  their 
opinions  upon  incidental  and  subordinate  provisions.  But  the  Bill 
proposes  enactments  entirely  distinct,  and  different  from  one  anoth- 
er, in  character  and  tendency.  Some  of  its  clauses  are  intended 
merely  for  revenue;  and,  of  those  which  regard  the  protection  of 
home  manufactures,  one  part  stands  upon  very  different  grounds 
from  those  of  other  parts.  So  that  probably  every  gentleman  who 
may  ultimately  support  the  bill  will  vote  for  much  which  his  judg- 
ment does  not  approve;  and  those  who  oppose  it  will  oppose  some- 
thing which  they  would  very  gladly  support. 

Being  intrusted  with  the  interests  of  a  district  highly  commer- 
cial, and  deeply  interested  in  manufactures  also,  I  wish  to  state  my 
opinions  on  the  present  measure;  not  as  on  a  whole,  for  it  has  no 
entire  and  homogeneous  character;  but  as  on  a  collection  of  differ- 
ent enactments,  some  of  which  meet  my  approbation,  and  some  of 
which  do  not. 

And  allow  me,  sir,  in  the  first  place,  to  state  my  regret,  if  indeed 
I  ought  not  to  express  a  warmer  sentiment,  at  the  names,  or  desig- 
nations, which  Mr.  Speaker  has  seen  fit  to  adopt,  for  the  purpose  of 
describing  the  advocates  and  the  opposers  of  the  present  Bill.  It 
is  a  question,  he  says,  between  the  friends  of  an  "  American  policy, " 
34  y 


266 

and  those  of  a  "  foreign  policy."  This,  sir,  is  an  assumption  which 
I  take  the  liberty  most  directly  to  deny.  Mr.  Speaker  certainly  in- 
tended nothing  invidious  or  derogatory  to  any  part  of  the  House  by 
this  mode  of  denominating  friends  and  enemies.  But  there  is  pow- 
er in  names,  and  this  manner  of  distinguishing  those  who  favor  and 
those  who  oppose  particular  measures,  may  lead  to  inferences  to 
which  no  member  of  the  House  can  submit.  It  may  imply  that 
there  is  a  more  exclusive  and  peculiar  regard  to  American  interests 
in  one  class  of  opinions  than  in  another.  Such  an  implication  is  to 
be  resisted  and  repelled.  Every  member  has  a  right  to  the  presump- 
tion, that  he  pursues  what  he  believes  to  be  the  interest  of  his  coun- 
try, with  as  sincere  a  zeal  as  any  other  member.  I  claim  this  in 
my  own  case;  and,  while  I  shall  not,  for  any  purpose  of  description, 
or  convenient  arrangement,  use  terms  which  may  imply  any  disre- 
spect to  other  men's  opinions,  much  less  any  imputations  of  other 
men's  motives,  it  is  my  duty  to  take  care  that  the  use  of  such  terms 
by  others  be  not,  against  the  will  of  those  who  adopt  them,  made  to 
produce  a  false  impression.  Indeed,  sir,  it  is  a  little  astonishing,  if 
it  seemed  convenient  to  Mr.  Speaker,  for  the  purposes  of  distinction, 
to  make  use  of  the  terms  "  American  policy,"  and  "  foreign  policy," 
that  he  should  not  have  applied  them  in  a  manner  precisely  the  re- 
verse of  that  in  which  he  has  in  fact  used  them.  If  names  are 
thought  necessary,  it  would  be  well  enough,  one  would  think,  that 
the  name  should  be,  in  some  measure,  descriptive  of  the  thing;  and 
since  Mr.  Speaker  denominates  the  policy  which  he  recommends  "  a 
new  policy  in  this  country;"  since  he  speaks  of  the  present  measure 
as  a  new  era  in  our  legislation;  since  he  professes  to  invite  us  to  de- 
part from  our  accustomed  course,  to  instruct  ourselves  by  the  wisdom 
of  others,  and  to  adopt  the  policy  of  the  most  distinguished  foreign 
states,  one  is  a  little  curious  to  know  with  what  propriety  of  speech 
this  imitation  of  other  nations  is  denominated  an  "American  policy," 
while,  on  the  contrary,  a  preference  for  our  own  established  system, 
as  it  now  actually  exists,  and  always  has  existed,  is  called  a"  foreign 
policy."  This  favorite  American  policy  is  what  America  has  never 
tried;  and  this  odious  foreign  policy  is  what,  as  we  are  told,  foreign 
states  have  never  pursued.  Sir,  that  is  the  truest  American  policy 
which  shall  most  usefully  employ  American  capital,  and  American 
labor,  and  best  sustain  the  whole  population.  With  me  it  is  a  fun- 
damental axiom,  it  is  interwoven  with  all  my  opinions,  that  the  great 
interests  of  the  country  are  united  and  inseparable;  that  agriculture, 
commerce,  and  manufactures,  will  prosper  together,  or  languish  to- 
gether; and  that  all  legislation  is  dangerous  which  proposes  to  ben- 
efit one  of  these  without  looking  to  consequences  which  may  fall  on 
the  others. 

Passing  from  this,  sir,  I  am  bound  to  say  that  Mr.  Speaker  began 
his  able  and  impressive  speech  at  the  proper  point  of  inquiry;  I  mean 
the  present  state  and  condition  of  the  country;  although  I  am  so  unfor- 
tunate, or  rather  although  I  am  so  happy,  as  to  differ  from  him  very 
widely  in  regard  to  that  condition.  I  dissent  entirely  from  the  jus- 
tice of  that  picture  of  distress  which  he  has  drawn.  I  have  not  seen 
the  reality,  and  know  not  where  it  exists.  Within  my  observation 
there  is  no  cause  for  so  gloomy  and  terrifying  a  representation.     In 


267 

respect  to  the  New  England  states,  with  the  condition  of  which  I  am, 
of  course,  most  acquainted,  the  present  appears  to  me  a  period  of 
very  general  prosperity.  Not,  indeed,  a  time  for  great  profits  and 
sudden  acquisition;  not  a  day  of  extraordinary  activity  and  success- 
ful speculation.  There  is,  no  doubt,  a  considerable  depression  of 
prices,  and,  in  some  degree,  a  stagnation  of  business.  But  the  case 
presented  by  Mr.  Speaker  was  not  one  of  depression,  but  of  distress; 
of  universal,  pervading,  intense  distress,  limited  to  no  class,  and  to 
no  place.  We  are  represented  as  on  the  very  verge  and  brink  of 
national  ruin.  So  far  from  acquiescing  in  these  opinions,  I  believe 
there  has  been  no  period  in  which  the  general  prosperity  was  better 
secured,  or  rested  on  a  more  solid  foundation.  As  applicable  to  the 
Eastern  states,  I  put  this  remark  to  their  Representatives,  and  ask 
them  if  it  is  not  true.  When  has  there  been  a  time  in  which  the 
means  of  living  have  been  more  accessible  and  more  abundant? 
when  has  labor  been  rewarded,  I  do  not  say  with  a  larger,  but  with 
a  more  certain  success?  Profits,  indeed,  are  low;  in  some  pursuits 
of  life,  which  it  is  not  proposed  to  benefit,  but  to  burden,  by  this  Bill, 
very  low.  But  still  I  am  unacquainted  with  any  proofs  of  extraor- 
dinary distress.  What,  indeed,  are  the  general  indications  of  the 
state  of  the  country  ?  There  is  no  famine  nor  pestilence  in  the  land, 
nor  war,  nor  desolation.  There  is  no  writhing  under  the  burden  of 
taxation.  The  means  of  subsistence  are  abundant;  and  at  the  very 
moment  when  the  miserable  condition  of  the  country  is  asserted,  it 
is  admitted  that  the  wages  of  labor  are  high,  in  comparison  with 
those  of  any  other  country.  A  country,  then,  enjoying  a  profound 
peace,  a  perfect  civil  liberty,  with  the  means  of  subsistence  cheap 
and  abundant,  with  the  reward  of  labor  sure,  and  its  wages  higher 
than  anywhere  else,  cannot  be  represented  in  gloom,  melancholy, 
and  distress,  but  by  the  effort  of  extraordinary  powers  of  tragedy. 
Even  if,  in  judging  of  this  question,  we  were  to  regard  only  those 
proofs  to  which  we  have  been  referred,  we  shall  probably  come  to  a 
conclusion  somewhat  different  from  that  which  has  been  drawn. 
Our  exports,  for  example,  although  certainly  less  than  in  some  years, 
were  not,  last  year,  so  much  below  an  average,  formed  upon  the  ex- 
ports of  a  series  of  years,  and  putting  those  exports  at  a  fixed  value, 
as  might  be  supposed.  The  exports  of  agricultural  products,  of 
animals,  of  the  products  of  the  forest,  of  the  sea,  together  with  gun- 
powder, spirits,  and  sundry  unenumerated  articles,  amounted,  in  the 
several  years,  to  the  following  sums,  viz. 

In  1790  -  $27,716,152 

1804  -  -  -  -        33,842,316 

1807  -  -  -  -        38,465,854 

Coming  up,  now,  to  our  own  times,  and  taking  the  exports  of  the 
years  1821,  1822,  and  1823,  of  the  same  articles  and  products,  at  the 
same  prices,  they  stand  thus: 

In  1821  -  -  -  -     $  45,643,175 

1822  -  48,782,295 

1823  -  -  -  -         55,863,491 
Mr.  Speaker  has  taken  the  very  extraordinary  year  of  1803,  and, 

adding  to  the  exportation  of  that  year,  what  he  thinks  ought  to  have 


268 

been  a  just  augmentation,  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  our  popu- 
lation, he  swells  the  result  to  a  magnitude,  which,  when  compared 
with  our  actual  exports,  would  exhibit  a  great  deficiency.  But  is 
there  any  justice  in  this  mode  of  calculation?  In  the  first  place,  as 
before  observed,  the  year  1803  was  a  year  of  extraordinary  exporta- 
tion. By  reference  to  the  accounts,  that  of  the  article  of  flour,  for 
example,  there  was  an  export  that  year  of  1,300,000  barrels;  but  the 
very  next  year  it  fell  to  800,000,  and  the  next  year  to  700,000.  In 
the  next  place,  there  never  was  any  reason  to  expect  that  the  increase 
of  our  exports  of  agricultural  products,  would  keep  pace  with  the 
increase  of  our  population.  That  would  be  against  all  experience. 
It  is,  indeed,  most  desirable,  that  there  should  be  an  augmented  de- 
mand for  the  products  of  agriculture;  but,  nevertheless,  the  official 
returns  of  our  exports  do  not  show  that  absolute  want  of  all  foreign 
market,  which  has  been  so  strongly  stated. 

But  there  are  other  means  by  which  to  judge  of  the  general  con- 
dition of  the  people.  The  quantity  of  the  means  of  subsistence 
consumed;  or,  to  make  use  of  a  phraseology  better  suited  to  the  con- 
dition of  our  own  people,  the  quantity  of  the  comforts  of  life  enjoyed, 
is  one  of  those  means.  It  so  happens,  indeed,  that  it  is  not  so  easy 
in  this  country,  as  elsewhere,  to  ascertain  facts,  of  this  sort,  with 
accuracy.  Where  most  of  the  articles  of  subsistence,  and  most  of 
the  comforts  of  life  are  taxed,  there  is,  of  course,  great  facility  in 
ascertaining,  from  official  statements,  the  amount  of  consumption. 
But,  in  this  country,  most  fortunately,  the  government  neither  knows, 
nor  is  concerned  to  know,  the  annual  consumption;  and  estimates 
can  only  be  formed  in  another  mode,  and  in  reference  only  to  a  few 
articles.  Of  these  articles,  tea  is  one.  Its  use  is  not  quite  a  luxu- 
ry, and  yet  is  something  above  the  absolute  necessaries  of  life.  Its 
consumption,  therefore,  will  be  diminished  in  times  of  adversity,  and 
augmented  in  times  of  prosperity.  By  deducting  the  annual  export 
from  the  annual  import,  and  taking  a  number  of  years  together,  we 
may  arrive  at  a  probable  estimate  of  consumption.  The  average  of 
eleven  years,  from  1790,  to  1800,  inclusive,  will  be  found  to  be  two 
millions  and  a  half  of  pounds.  From  1801  to  1812,  inclusive,  three 
millions  seven  hundred  thousand;  and  the  average  of  the  last  three 
years,  to  wit:  1821,  1822,  and  1823,  five  millions  and  a  half.  Hav- 
ing made  a  just  allowance  for  the  increase  of  our  numbers,  we  shall 
still  find,  I  think,  from  these  statements,  that  there  is  no  distress 
which  has  limited  our  means  of  subsistence  and  enjoyment. 

In  forming  an  opinion  of  the  degree  of  general  prosperity,  we  may 
regard,  likewise,  the  progress  of  internal  improvements — the  invest- 
ment of  capital  in  roads,  bridges,  and  canals.  All  these  prove  a 
balance  of  income  over  expenditure;  they  are  evidence  that  there  is 
a  surplus  of  profits,  which  the  present  generation  is  usefully  vesting 
for  the  benefit  of  the  next.  It  cannot  be  denied  that,  in  this  partic- 
ular, the  progress  of  the  country  is  steady  and  rapid. 

We  may  look,  too,  to  the  expenses  of  education.  Are  our  Col- 
leges deserted?  Do  fathers  find  themselves  less  able  than  usual  to 
educate  their  children?  It  will  be  found,  I  imagine,  that  the  amount 
paid  for  the  purpose  of  education,  is  constantly  increasing,  and  that 
the  schools  and  colleges  were  never  more  full  than  at  the  present 


269 

moment.  I  may  add  that  the  endowment  of  public  charities,  the 
contributions  to  objects  of  general  benevolence,  whether  foreign  or 
domestic,  the  munificence  of  individuals  towards  whatever  promises 
to  benefit  the  community,  are  all  so  many  proofs  of  national  pros- 
perity. And,  finally,  there  is  no  defalcation  of  revenue,  no  pressure 
of  taxation. 

The  general  result,  therefore,  of  a  fair  examination  of%he  present 
condition  of  things,  seems  to  me  to  be,  that  there  is  a  considerable 
depression  of  prices,  and  curtailment  of  profit;  and,  in  some  parts  of 
the  country,  it  must  be  admitted,  there  is  a  great  degree  of  pecuniary 
embarrassment,  arising  from  the  difficulty  of  paying  debts  which  were 
contracted  when  prices  were  high.  With  these  qualifications,  the 
general  state  of  the  country  may  be  said  to  be  prosperous;  and  these 
are  not  sufficient  to  give  to  the  whole  face  of  affairs  any  appearance 
of  general  distress. 

Supposing  the  evil,  then,  to  be  a  depression  of  prices,  and  a  partial 
pecuniary  pressure,  the  next  inquiry  is  into  the  causes  of  that  evil; 
and  it  appears  to  me  that  there  are  several — and,  in  this  respect,  I 
think,  too  much  has  been  imputed,  by  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  single 
cause  of  the  diminution  of  exports.  Connected,  as  we  are,  with  all 
the  commercial  nations  of  the  world,  and  having  observed  great 
changes  to  take  place  elsewhere,  we  should  consider  whether  the 
causes  of  those  changes  have  not  reached  us,  and  whether  we  are 
not  suffering  by  the  operation  of  them,  in  common  with  others.  Un- 
doubtedly, there  has  been  a  great  fall  in  the  price  of  all  commodities 
throughout  the  commercial  world,  in  consequence  of  the  restoration 
of  a  state  of  peace.  When  the  Allies  entered  France  in  1814,  prices 
rose  astonishingly  fast,  and  very  high.  Colonial  produce,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  ports  of  this  country,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  sprung  up 
suddenly  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  extreme.  A  new  and  vast 
demand  was  created  for  the  commodities  of  trade.  These  were  the 
natural  consequences  of  the  great  political  changes  which  then  took 
place  in  Europe. 

We  are  to  consider,  too,  that  our  own  war  created  new  demand, 
and  that  a  government  expenditure  of  25,000,000,  or  30,000,000,  a 
year,  had  the  usual  effect  of  enhancing  prices.  We  are  obliged  to 
add,  that  the  paper  issues  of  our  Banks  carried  the  same  effect  still 
further.  A  depreciated  currency  existed  in  a  great  part  of  the  coun- 
try; depreciated  to  such  an  extent  as  that,  at  one  time,  exchange  be- 
tween the  centre  and  the  north,  was  as  high  as  20  per  cent.  The 
Bank  of  the  United  States  was  instituted  to  correct  this  evil;  but,  for 
causes  which  it  is  not  necessary  now  to  enumerate,  it  did  not  for 
some  years,  bring  back  the  currency  of  the  country  to  a  sound  state. 
This  depreciation  of  the  circulating  currency,  was  so  much,  of  course, 
added  to  the  nominal  prices  of  commodities,  and  these  prices  thus 
unnaturally  high,  seemed,  to  those  who  looked  only  at  the  appearance, 
to  indicate  great  prosperity.  But  such  prosperity  is  more  specious 
than  real.  It  would  have  been  better,  probably,  as  the  shock  would 
have  been  less,  if  prices  had  fallen  sooner.  At  length,  however,  they 
fell;  and,  as  there  is  little  doubt  that  certain  events  in  Europe  had  an 
influence  in  determining  the  time  at  which  this  fall  should  take  place, 
I  will  advert  shortly  to  some  of  the  principal  of  those  events. 


270 

In  May,  1819,  the  British  House  of  Commons  decided,  by  an 
unanimous  vote,  that  the  resumption  of  cash  payments  by  the  Bank 
of  England,  should  not  be  deferred  beyond  the  ensuing  February. 
The  restriction  had  been  continued  from  time  to  time,  and  from  year 
to  year,  Parliament  always  professing  to  look  to  the  restoration  of  a 
specie  currency,  whenever  it  should  be  found  practicable.  Having 
been,  in  July,  1818,  continued  to  July,  1819,  it  was  understood  that, 
in  the  interim,  the  important  question  of  the  time  at  which  cash  pay- 
ments should  be  resumed,  should  be  finally  settled.  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  year  '18,  the  circulation  of  the  Bank  had  been  greatly  re- 
duced, and  a  severe  scarcity  of  money  was  felt  in  the  London  market. 
Such  was  the  state  of  things  in  England.  On  the  continent,  other 
important  events  took  place.  The  French  Indemnity  Loan  had  been 
negotiated  in  the  summer  of  1818,  and  the  proportion  of  it  belonging 
to  Austria,  Russia,  and  Prussia,  had  been  sold.  This  created  an 
unusual  demand  for  gold  and  silver  in  these  Eastern  States  of  Europe. 
It  has  been  stated,  that  the  amount  of  the  precious  metals  transmitted 
to  Austria  and  Russia  in  that  year,  was  at  least  twenty  millions 
sterling.  Other  large  sums  were  sent  to  Prussia  and  to  Denmark. 
The  effect  of  this  sudden  drain  of  specie,  felt  first  at  Paris,  was  com- 
municated to  Amsterdam  and  Hamburg,  and  all  other  commercial 
places  in  the  north  of  Europe. 

The  paper  system  of  England  had  certainly  communicated  an  arti- 
ficial value  to  property.  It  had  encouraged  speculation,  and  excited 
overtrading.  When  the  shock  therefore  came,  and  this  violent  pres- 
sure for  money  acted  at  the  same  moment  on  the  continent  and  in 
England,  inflated  and  unnatural  prices  could  be  kept  up  no  longer. 
A  reduction  took  place,  which  has  been  estimated  to  have  been  at 
least  equal  to  a  fall  of  30,  if  not  40  per  cent.  The  depression  was 
universal;  and  the  change  was  felt  in  the  United  States  severely, 
though  not  equally  so  in  every  part  of  them.  There  are  those,  I  am 
aware,  who  maintain  that  the  events  to  which  I  have  alluded  did  not 
cause  the  great  fall  of  prices;  but  that  that  fall  was  natural  and  inevi- 
table, from  the  previously  existing  state  of  things,  the  abundance  of 
commodities,  and  the  want  of  demand.  But  that  would  only  prove 
that  the  effect  was  produced  in  another  way,  rather  than  by  another 
cause.  If  these  great  and  sudden  calls  for  money  did  not  reduce 
prices,  but  prices  fell,  as  of  themselves,  to  their  natural  state,  still 
the  result  is  the  same;  for  we  perceive  that  after  these  new  calls  foi 
money,  prices  could  not  be  kept  longer  at  their  unnatural  height. 

About  the  time  of  these  foreign  events,  our  own  bank  system  under 
went  a  change;  and  all  these  causes,  in  my  view  of  the  subject,  con 
curred  to  produce  the  great  shock  which  took  place  in  our  commercial 
cities,  and  through  many  parts  of  the  country.     The  year  1819  was 
a  year  of  numerous  failures,  and  very  considerable  distress,  and  would 
have  furnished  far  better  grounds  than  exist  at  present,  for  that  gloomy 
representation  of  our  condition  which  has  been  presented.     Mr 
Speaker  has  alluded  to  the  strong  inclination  which  exists,  or  has1 
existed,  in  various  parts  of  the  country  to  issue  paper  money,  as  a 
proof  of  great  existing  difficulties.     I  regard  it  rather  as  a  very  pro- 
ductive cause  of  those  difficulties;  and  the  committee  will  not  fail  to 
observe,  that  there  is,  at  this  moment,  much  the  loudest  complaint 


271 

of  distress  precisely  where  there  has  been  the  greatest  attempt  to 
relieve  it  by  systems  of  paper  credit.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
tent, prosperity,  and  happiness,  are  most  observable  in  those  parts 
of  the  country,  where  there  has  been  the  least  endeavour  to  adminis- 
ter relief  by  law.  In  truth,  nothing  is  so  baneful,  so  utterly  ruinous 
to  all  true  industry,  as  interfering  with  the  legal  value  of  money,  or 
attempting  to  raise  artificial  standards  to  supply  its  place.  Such 
remedies  suit  well  the  spirit  of  extravagant  speculation,  but  they  sap 
the  very  foundation  of  all  honest  acquisition.  By  weakening  the 
security  of  property,  they  take  away  all  motive  for  exertion.  Their 
effect  is  to  transfer  property.  Whenever  a  debt  is  allowed  to  be 
paid  by  anything  less  valuable  than  the  legal  currency  in  respect  to 
which  it  was  contracted,  the  difference,  between  the  value  of  the 
paper  given  in  payment  and  the  legal  currency,  is  precisely  so  much 
property  taken  from  one  man  and  given  to  another,  by  legislative 
enactment.  When  we  talk,  therefore,  of  protecting  industry,  let  us 
remember  that  the  first  measure  for  that  end,  is  to  secure  it  in  its 
earnings;  to  assure  it  that  it  shall  receive  its  own.  Before  we  in- 
vent new  modes  of  raising  prices,  let  us  take  care  that  existing 
prices  are  not  rendered  wholly  unavailable,  by  making  them  capable 
of  being  paid  in  depreciated  paper.  I  regard,  sir,  this  issue  of 
irredeemable  paper  as  the  most  prominent  and  deplorable  cause  of 
whatever  pressure  still  exists  in  the  country;  and,  further,  I  would 
put  the  question  to  the  members  of  this  Committee,  whether  it  is  not 
from  that  part  of  the  people  who  have  tried  this  paper  system,  and 
tried  it  to  their  cost,  that  this  Bill  receives  the  most  earnest  support? 
And  I  cannot  forbear  to  ask,  further,  whether  this  support  does  not 
proceed  rather  from  a  general  feeling  of  uneasiness  under  the  pre- 
sent condition  of  things,  than  from  the  clear  perception  of  any  benefit 
which  the  measure  itself  can  confer?  Is  not  all  expectation  of  ad- 
vantage centred  in  a  sort  of  vague  hope,  that  change  may  produce 
relief?  Debt  certainly  presses  hardest,  where  prices  have  been 
longest  kept  up  by  artificial  means.  They  find  the  shock  lightest, 
who  take  it  soonest;  and  I  fully  believe  that,  if  those  parts  of  the 
country  which  now  suffer  most,  had  not  augmented  the  force  of  the 
blow  by  deferring  it,  they  would  have  now  been  in  a  much  better  con- 
dition than  they  are.  We  may  assure  ourselves,  once  for  all,  sir,  that 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  payment  of  debts  by  legislation.  We 
may  abolish  debts  indeed;  we  may  transfer  property,  by  visionary  and 
violent  laws.  But  we  deceive  both  ourselves  and  our  constituents, 
if  we  flatter,  either  ourselves  or  them,  with  the  hope  that  there  is 
any  relief  against  whatever  pressure  exists,  but  in  economy  and  in- 
dustry. The  depression  of  prices  and  the  stagnation  of  business, 
have  been  in  truth  the  necessary  result  of  circumstances.  No 
government  could  prevent  them,  and  no  government  can  altogether 
relieve  the  people  from  their  effect.  We  had  enjoyed  a  day  of  extra- 
ordinary prosperity;  we  had  been  neutral  while  the  world  was  at  war, 
and  had  found  a  great  demand  for  our  products,  our  navigation,  and 
our  labor.  We  had  no  right  to  expect  that  that  state  of  things  would 
continue  always.  With  the  return  of  peace,  foreign  nations  would 
struggle  for  themselves,  and  enter  into  competition  with  us  in  the 
great  objects  of  pursuit. 


272 

Now,  sir,  what  is  the  remedy  for  existing  evils?  what  is  the  course 
of  policy  suited  to  our  actual  condition?  Certainly  it  is  not  our 
wisdom  to  adopt  any  system  that  may  be  offered  to  us  without  ex- 
amination, and  in  the  blind  hope  that  whatever  changes  our  condition 
may  improve  it.     It  is  better  that  we  should 

"  Bear  those  ills  we  have, 
Than  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of." 

We  are  bound  to  see  that  there  is  a  fitness  and  an  aptitude  in  what- 
ever measures  may  be  recommended  to  relieve  the  evils  that  afflict 
us;  and  before  we  adopt  a  system  that  professes  to  make  great  al- 
terations, it  is  our  duty  to  look  carefully  to  each  leading  interest  of 
the  community,  and  see  how  it  may  probably  be  affected  by  our 
proposed  legislation. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  what  is  the  condition  of  our  commerce  ? 
Here  we  must  clearly  perceive,  that  it  is  not  enjoying  that  rich  har- 
vest which  fell  to  its  fortune  during  the  continuance  of  the  Euro- 
pean wars.  It  has  been  greatly  depressed,  and  limited  to  small 
profits.  Still,  it  is  elastic  and  active,  and  seems  capable  of  recov- 
ering itself  in  some  measure  from  its  depression.  The  shipping 
interest,  also,  has  suffered  severely,  still  more  severely,  probably, 
than  commerce.  If  anything  should  strike  us  with  astonishment,  it 
is  that  the  navigation  of  the  United  States  should  be  able  to  sustain 
itself.  Without  any  government  protection  whatever,  it  goes  abroad 
to  challenge  competition  with  the  whole  world;  and,  in  spite  of  all 
obstacles,  it  has  yet  been  able  to  maintain  800,000  tons  in  the  em- 
ployment of  foreign  trade.  How,  sir,  do  the  ship  owners  and  navi- 
gators accomplish  this?  How  is  it  that  they  are  able  to  meet,  and 
in  some  measure  overcome,  universal  competition?  Not,  sir,  by 
protection  and  bounties;  but  by  unwearied  exertion,  by  extreme 
economy,  by  unshaken  perseverance,  by  that  manly  and  resolute 
spirit  which  relies  on  itself  to  protect  itself.  These  causes  alone 
enable  American  ships  still  to  keep  their  element,  and  show  the  flag 
of  their  country  in  distant  seas.  The  rates  of  insurance  may  teach 
us  how  thoroughly  our  ships  are  built,  and  how  skilfully  and  safely 
they  are  navigated.  Risks  are  taken,  as  I  learn,  from  the  United 
States  to  Liverpool,  at  1  per  cent.;  and  from  the  United  States  to 
Canton  and  back,  as  low  as  3  per  cent.  But  when  we  look  to  the 
low  rate  of  freight,  and  when  we  consider,  also,  that  the  articles 
entering  into  the  composition  of  a  ship,  with  the  exception  of  wood, 
are  dearer  here  than  in  other  countries,  we  cannot  but  be  utterly 
surprised,  that  the  shipping  interest  has  been  able  to  sustain  itself 
at  all.  I  need  not  say  that  the  navigation  of  the  country  is  essen- 
tial to  its  honor,  and  its  defence.  Yet,  instead  of  proposing  benefit 
for  it  in  this  hour  of  its  depression,  we  propose  by  this  measure  to 
lay  upon  it  new  and  heavy  burdens.  In  the  discussion,  the  other 
day,  of  that  provision  of  the  bill  which  proposes  to  tax  tallow  for 
the  benefit  of  the  oil  merchants  and  whalemen,  we  had  the  pleasure 
of  hearing  eloquent  eulogiums  upon  that  portion  of  our  shipping 
employed  in  the  whale  fishery,  and  strong  statements  of  its  impor- 
tance to  the  public  interest.  But  the  same  Bill  proposes  a  severe 
tax  upon  that  interest,  for  the  benefit  of  the  iron  manufacturer  and 


273 

the  hemp  grower.  So  that  the  tallowchandlers  and  soapboilers  are 
sacrificed  to  the  oil  merchants,  in  order  that  these  again  may  contri- 
bute to  the  manufacturers  of  iron  and  the  growers  of  hemp. 

If  such  be  the  state  of  our  commerce  and  navigation,  what  is  the 
condition  of  our  home  manufactures?  How  are  they  amidst  the  gen- 
eral depression?  Do  they  need  further  protection?  and  if  any,  how 
much  ?  On  all  these  points,  we  have  had  much  general  statement, 
but  little  precise  information.  In  the  very  elaborate  speech  of  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  are  not  supplied  with  satisfactory  grounds  of  judging  in 
these  various  particulars.  Who  can  tell,  from  anything  yet  before 
the  Committee,  whether  the  proposed  duty  be  too  high  or  too  low, 
on  any  one  article  ?  Gentlemen  tell  us,  that  they  are  in  favor  of  do- 
mestic industry;  so  am  I.  They  would  give  it  protection:  so  would 
I.  But  then  all  domestic  industry  is  not  confined  to  manufactures. 
The  employments  of  agriculture,  commerce,  and  navigation,  are  all 
branches  of  the  same  domestic  industry;  they  all  furnish  employment 
for  American  capital,  and  American  labor.  And  when  the  question 
is,  whether  new  duties  shall  be  laid,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  fur- 
ther encouragement  to  particular  manufactures,  every  reasonable  man 
must  ask  himself,  both,  whether  the  proposed  new  encouragement 
be  necessary,  and,  whether  it  can  be  given  without  injustice  to  other 
branches  of  industry. 

It  is  desirable  to  know,  also,  somewhat  more  distinctly,  how  the 
proposed  means  will  produce  the  intended  effect.  One  great  object 
proposed,  for  example,  is,  the  increase  of  the  home  market  for  the  con- 
sumption of  agricultural  products.  This  certainly  is  much  to  be 
desired;  but  what  provisions  of  the  Bill  are  expected  wholly,  or  prin- 
cipally to  produce  this,  is  not  stated.  I  would  not  suggest  that  some 
increase  of  the  home  market  may  not  follow,  from  the  adoption  of 
this  Bill,  but  all  its  provisions  have  not  an  equal  tendency  to  produce 
this  effect.  Those  manufactures  which  employ  most  labor,  create 
of  course,  most  demand  for  articles  of  consumption;  and  those  create 
least,  in  the  production  of  which  capital  and  skill  enter  as  the  chief 
ingredients  of  cost.  I  cannot,  sir,  take  this  Bill,  merely  because  a 
Committee  has  recommended  it.  I  cannot  espouse  a  side,  and  fight 
under  a  flag.  I  wholly  repel  the  idea,  that  we  must  take  this  law, 
or  pass  no  law  on  the  subject.  What  should  hinder  us  from  exercis- 
ing our  own  judgments  upon  these  provisions,  singly  and  severally? 
Who  has  the  power  to  place  us,  or  why  should  we  place  ourselves,  in 
a  condition  where  we  cannot  give  to  every  measure,  that  is  distinct 
and  separate  in  itself,  a  separate  and  distinct  consideration  ?  Sir,  I 
presume  no  member  of  the  Committee  will  withhold  his  assent  from 
what  he  thinks  right,  until  others  will  yield  their  assent  to  what  they 
think  wrong.  There  are  many  things  in  this  Bill,  acceptable  proba- 
bly to  the  general  sense  of  the  House.  Why  should  not  these  pro- 
visions be  passed  into  a  law,  and  others  left  to  be  decided  upon  their 
own  merits,  as  a  majority  of  the  House  shall  see  fit?  To  some  of 
these  provisions,  I  am  myself  decidedly  favorable;  to  others,  I  have 
great  objections;  and  I  should  have  been  very  glad  of  an  opportuni- 
ty of  giving  my  own  vote  distinctly  on  propositions,  which  are,  in 
their  own  nature,  essentially  and  substantially  distinct  from  one 
another. 

35 


274 

But,  sir,  before  expressing  my  own  opinion  upon  the  several  pro- 
visions of  this  Bill,  I  will  advert  for  a  moment  to  some  other  general 
topics.  We  have  heard  much  of  the  policy  of  England,  and  her  ex- 
ample has  been  repeatedly  urged  upon  us,  as  proving,  not  only  the 
expediency  of  encouragement  and  protection,  but  of  exclusion  and 
direct  prohibition  also.  I  took  occasion  the  other  day  to  remark, 
that  more  liberal  notions  were  growing  prevalent  on  this  subject; 
that  the  policy  of  restraints  and  prohibitions  was  getting  out  of  re- 
pute, as  the  true  nature  of  commerce  became  better  understood; 
and  that,  among  public  men,  those  most  distinguished,  were  most 
decided  in  their  reprobation  of  the  broad  principle  of  exclusion  and 
prohibition.  Upon  the  truth  of  this  representation,  as  matter  of 
fact,  I  supposed  there  could  not  be  two  opinions  among  those  who 
had  observed  the  progress  of  political  sentiment  in  other  countries, 
and  were  acquainted  with  its  present  state.  In  this  respect,  how- 
ever, it  would  seem,  that  I  was  greatly  mistaken.  We  have  heard 
it  again  and  again  declared,  that  the  English  government  still  ad- 
heres, with  immovable  firmness,  to  its  old  doctrines  of  prohibition; 
that  although  journalists,  theorists,  and  scientific  writers,  advance 
other  doctrines,  yet  the  practical  men,  the  legislators,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  country,  are  too  wise  to  follow  them.  It  has  even  been 
most  sagaciously  hinted,  that  the  promulgation  of  liberal  opinions 
on  these  subjects,  is  intended  only  for  a  delusion  upon  other  na- 
tions, to  cajole  them  into  the  folly  of  liberal  ideas,  while  England 
retains  to  herself  all  the  benefits  of  the  admirable  old  system  of 
prohibition.  We  have  heard  from  Mr.  Speaker  a  warm  commen- 
dation of  the  complex  mechanism  of  this  system.  The  British 
Empire,  it  is  said,  is,  in  the  first  place,  to  be  protected  against  the 
rest  of  the  world;  then  the  British  isles  against  the  colonies;  next, 
the  isles  respectively  against  each  other — England  herself,  as  the 
heart  of  the  empire,  being  protected  most  of  all,  and  against  all. 

Truly,  sir,  it  appears  to  me,  that  Mr.  Speaker's  imagination  has 
seen  system,  and  order,  and  beauty,  in  that,  which  is  much  more 
justly  considered  as  the  result  of  ignorance,  partiality,  or  violence. 
This  part  of  English  legislation  has  resulted,  partly  from  consider- 
ing Ireland  as  a  conquered  country,  partly  from  the  want  of  a  com- 
plete union,  even  with  Scotland,  and  partly  from  the  narrow  views 
of  colonial  regulation,  which  in  early  and  uninformed  periods,  in- 
fluenced the  European  states. 

And,  sir,  I  imagine,  nothing  would  strike  the  public  men  of  Eng- 
land more  singularly,  than  to  find  gentlemen  of  real  information,  and 
much  weight,  in  the  councils  of  this  country,  expressing  sentiments 
like  these,  in  regard  to  the  existing  state  of  these  English  laws.  I 
have  never  said,  indeed,  that  prohibitory  laws  did  not  exist  in  Eng- 
land; we  all  know  they  do;  but  the  question  is,  does  she  owe  her 
prosperity  and  greatness  to  these  laws  ?  I  venture  to  say,  that  such  is 
not  the  opinion  of  the  public  men  now  in  England,  and  the  continu- 
ance of  the  laws,  even  without  any  alteration,  would  not  be  evidence 
that  their  opinion  is  different  from  what  I  have  represented  it;  be- 
cause the  laws  having  existed  long,  and  great  interests  having  been 
built  up  on  the  faith  of  them,  they  cannot  now  be  repealed,  without 
great  and  overwhelming  inconvenience.     Because  a  thing  has  been 


275 

wrongly  done,  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  it  can  ncvr  be  un- 
done; and  this  is  the  reason,  as  I  understand  it,  upon  which  exclu- 
sion, prohibition,  and  monopoly,  are  suffered  to  remain  in  any  degree 
in  the  English  system;  and  for  the  same  reason,  it  will  be  wise  in  ts 
to  take  our  measures,  on  all  subjects  of  this  kind,  Avith  great  caution. 
We  may  not  be  able,  but  at  the  hazard  of  much  injury  to  individuals, 
hereafter  to  retrace  our  steps.  And  yet,  whatever  is  extravagant, 
or  unreasonable,  is  not  likely  to  endure.  There  may  come  a  moment 
of  strong  reaction;  and  if  no  moderation  be  shown  in  laying  on  du- 
ties, there  may  be  little  scruple  in  taking  them  off.  It  may  here  be 
observed,  that  there  is  a  broad  and  marked  distinction  between  entire 
prohibition,  and  reasonable  encouragement.  It  is  one  thing  by  du- 
ties or  taxes  on  foreign  articles,  to  awaken  a  home  competition  in 
the  production  of  the  same  articles;  it  is  another  thing  to  remove  all 
competition  by  a  total  exclusion  of  the  foreign  article;  and  it  is  quite 
another  thing  still,  by  total  prohibition,  to  raise  at  home,  manufactures 
not  suited  to  the  climate,  the  nature  of  the  country,  or  the  state  of 
the  population.  These  are  substantial  distinctions,  and  although  it 
may  not  be  easy  in  every  case,  to  determine  which  of  them  applies  to 
a  given  article,  yet,  the  distinctions  themselves  exist,  and  in  most 
cases,  will  be  sufficiently  clear  to  indicate  the  true  course  of  policy; 
and,  unless  I  have  greatly  mistaken  the  prevailing  sentiment  in  the 
councils  of  England,  it  grows  every  day  more  and  more  favorable  to 
the  diminution  of  restrictions,  and  to  the  wisdom  of  leaving  much  (I 
do  not  say  everything,  for  that  would  not  be  true)  to  the  enterprise 
and  the  discretion  of  individuals.  I  should  certainly  not  have  taken 
up  the  time  of  the  Committee  to  state  at  any  length  the  opinions  of 
other  governments,  or  of  the  public  men  of  other  countries,  upon  a 
subject  like  this;  but  an  occasional  remark  made  by  me  the  other  day, 
having  been  so  directly  controverted,  especially  by  Mr.  Speaker,  in 
his  observations  yesterday,  I  must  take  occasion  to  refer  to  some 
proofs  of  what  I  have  stated. 

What,  then,  is  the  state  of  English  opinion  ?  Everybody  knows  that, 
after  the  termination  of  the  late  European  war,  there  came  a  time  of 
great  pressure  in  England.  Since  her  example  has  been  quoted,  let 
it  be  asked  in  what  mode  her  government  sought  relief.  Did  it  aim 
to  maintain  artificial  and  unnatural  prices  ?  Did  it  maintain  a  swollen 
and  extravagant  paper  circulation  ?  Did  it  carry  further  the  laws  of 
prohibition  and  exclusion  ?  Did  it  draw  closer  the  cords  of  colonial 
restraint  ?  No,  sir,  but  precisely  the  reverse.  Instead  of  relying  on 
legislative  contrivances  and  artificial  devices,  it  trusted  to  the  en- 
terprise and  industry  of  the  people;  which  it  sedulously  sought  to 
excite,  not  by  imposing  restraint,  but  by  removing  it,  wherever  its 
removal  was  practicable.  In  May,  1820,  the  attention  of  the  gov- 
ernment having  been  much  turned  to  the  state  of  foreign  trade,  a 
distinguished  member*  of  the  House  of  Peers  brought  forward  a 
parliamentary  motion  upon  that  subject,  followed  by  an  ample  dis- 
cussion, and  a  full  statement  of  his  own  opinions.  In  the  course  of 
his  remarks,  he  observed,  "  That  there  ought  to  be  no  prohibitory 
duties,  as  such;  for  that  it  was  evident,  that  where  a  manufacture 
Could  not  be  carried  on,  or  a  production  raised,  but  under  the  pro- 
*  Lord  Lansdowne. 


276 

tection  of  a  prohibitory  duty,  that  manufacture,  or  that  produce, 
could  not  be  brought  to  market  but  at  a  loss.  In  his  opinion,  the 
name  of  strict  prohibition  might,  therefore,  in  commerce,  be  got 
rid  of  altogether;  but  he  did  not  see  the  same  objection  to  protecting 
duties,  which,  while  they  admitted  of  the  introduction  of  commodi- 
ties from  abroad  similar  to  those  which  we  ourselves  manufactured, 
placed  them  so  much  on  a  level,  as  to  allow  a  competition  between 
them."  "  No  axiom,"  he  added,  u  was  more  true  than  this:  that  it 
was  by  growing  what  the  territory  of  a  country  could  grow  most 
cheaply,  and  by  receiving  from  other  countries  what  it  could  not 
produce  except  at  too  great  an  expense,  that  the  greatest  degree  of 
happiness  was  to  be  communicated  to  the  greatest  extent  of  popula- 
tion." In  assenting  to  the  motion,  the  first  Minister*  of  the  Crown 
expressed  his  own  opinion  of  the  great  advantage  resulting  from  un- 
restricted freedom  of  trade.  "  Of  the  soundness  of  that  general 
principle,"  he  observed,  "  I  can  entertain  no  doubt.  I  can  entertain 
no  doubt  of  what  would  have  been  the  great  advantages  to  the  civ- 
ilized world,  if  the  system  of  unrestricted  trade  had  been  acted  upon 
by  every  nation,  from  the  earliest  period  of  its  commercial  intercourse 
with  its  neighbours.  If  to  those  advantages  there  could  have  been 
any  exceptions,  I  am  persuaded  that  they  would  have  been  but  few; 
and  I  am  also  persuaded  that  the  cases,  to  which  they  would  have 
referred,  would  not  have  been,  in  themselves,  connected  with  the 
trade  and  commerce  of  England.  But  we  are  now  in  a  situation  in 
which,  I  will  not  say  that  a  reference  to  the  principle  of  unrestricted 
trade  can  be  of  no  use,  because  such  a  reference  may  correct  er- 
roneous reasoning — but  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  us,  or  for  any 
country  in  the  world,  but  the  United  States  of  America,  to  act  unre- 
servedly on  that  principle.  The  commercial  regulations  of  the  Eu- 
ropean world  have  been  long  established,  and  cannot  suddenly  be 
departed  from."  Having  supposed  a  proposition  to  be  made  to  Eng- 
land, by  a  foreign  state,  for  free  commerce  and  intercourse,  and  an 
unrestricted  exchange  of  agricultural  products,  and  of  manufactures, 
he  proceeds  to  observe:  "  It  would  be  impossible  to  accede  to  such 
a  proposition.  We  have  risen  to  our  present  greatness  under  a  dif- 
ferent system.  Some  suppose  that  we  have  risen  in  consequence 
of  that  system;  others,  of  whom  I  am  one,  believe  that  we  have  risen  in 
spite  or  that  system.  But,  whichever  of  these  hypotheses  be 
true,  certain  it  is,  that  we  have  risen  under  a  very  different  system 
than  that  of  free  and  unrestricted  trade.  It  is  utterly  impossible, 
with  our  debt  and  taxation,  even  if  they  were  but  half  their  existing 
amount,  that  we  can  suddenly  adopt  the  system  of  free  trade."  Lord 
Ellenborough,  in  the  same  debate,  said,  "  That  he  attributed  the 
general  distress  then  existing  in  Europe,  to  the  regulations  that  had 
taken  place  since  the  destruction  of  the  French  power.  Most  of 
the  states  on  the  continent  had  surrounded  themselves  as  with  walls 
of  brass,  to  inhibit  intercourse  with  other  states.  Intercourse  was 
prohibited,  even  in  districts  of  the  same  state,  as  was  the  case  in 
Austria  and  Sardinia.  Thus,  though  the  taxes  on  the  people  had 
been  lightened,  the  severity  of  their  condition  had  been  increased. 
He  believed  that  the  discontent  which  pervaded  most  parts  of  Eu- 

*  Lord  Liverpool. 


277 

rope,  and  especially  Germany,  was  more  owing  to  commercial  re- 
strictions, than  to  any  theoretical  doctrines  on  government;  and  that 
a  free  communication  among  them  would  do  more  to  restore  tran- 
quillity, than  any  other  step  that  could  be  adopted.  He  objected  to 
all  attempts  to  frustrate  the  benevolent  intentions  of  Providence, 
which  had  given  to  various  countries  various  wants,  in  order  to  bring 
them  together.  He  objected  to  it  as  antisocial;  he  objected  to  it,  as 
making  commerce  the  means  of  barbarising,  instead  of  enlightening 
nations.  The  state  of  the  trade  with  France  was  the  most  disgrace- 
ful to  both  countries;  the  two  greatest  civilized  nations  of  the  world, 
placed  at  a  distance  of  scarcely  twenty  miles  from  each  other,  had 
contrived,  by  their  artificial  regulations,  to  reduce  their  commerce 
with  each  other  to  a  mere  nullity."  Every  member,  speaking  on  this 
occasion,  agreed  in  the  general  sentiments  favorable  to  unrestricted 
intercourse,  which  had  thus  been  advanced;  one  of  them  remarking, 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  debate,  that  "  the  principles  of  free  trade, 
which  he  was  happy  to  see  so  fully  recognised,  were  of  the  utmost 
consequence;  for,  though,  in  the  present  circumstances  of  the  coun- 
try, a  free  trade  was  unattainable,  yet  their  task  hereafter  was  to  ap- 
proximate to  it.  Considering  the  prejudices  and  interests  which 
were  opposed  to  the  recognition  of  that  principle,  it  was  no  small 
indication  of  the  firmness  and  liberality  of  government,  to  have  so 
fully  conceded  it." 

Sir,  we  have  seen,  in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  that  several 
gentlemen  have  expressed  their  high  admiration  of  the  silk  manufac- 
ture of  England.  Its  commendation  was  begun,  I  think,  by  the  hon- 
orable member  from  Vermont,  who  sits  near  me,  who  thinks  that 
that  alone  gives  conclusive  evidence  of  the  benefits  produced  by  at- 
tention to  manufactures,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  great  source  of  wealth 
to  the  nation,  and  has  amply  repaid  all  the  cost  of  its  protection. 
Mr.  Speaker's  approbation  of  this  part  of  the  English  example,  was 
still  warmer.  Now,  sir,  it  does  so  happen,  that  both  these  gentlemen 
differ  very  widely  on  this  point,  from  the  opinions  entertained  in  Eng- 
land, by  persons  of  the  first  rank,  both  of  knowledge  and  of  power. 
In  the  debate  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  the  proposer  of  the 
motion  urged  the  expediency  of  providing  for  the  admission  of  the 
silks  of  France  into  England.  "  He  was  aware,"  he  said,  "  that 
there  was  a  poor  and  industrious  body  of  manufacturers,  whose  inter- 
ests must  suffer  by  such  an  arrangement;  and  therefore  he  felt  that 
it  would  be  the  duty  of  parliament  to  provide  for  the  present  genera- 
tion, by  a  large  parliamentary  grant.  It  was  conformable  to  every 
principle  of  sound  justice  to  do  so,  when  the  interests  of  a  particular 
class  were  sacrificed  to  the  good  of  the  whole."  In  answer  to  these 
observations,  Lord  Liverpool  said  that,  with  reference  to  several 
branches  of  manufactures,  time,  and  the  change  of  circumstances, 
had  rendered  the  system  of  protecting  duties  merely  nominal;  and 
that,  in  his  opinion,  if  all  the  protecting  laws  which  regarded  both 
the  woollen  and  cotton  manufactures,  were  to  be  repealed,  no  inju- 
rious effects  would  thereby  be  occasioned.  "  But,"  he  observes, 
"  Nvith  respect  to  silk,  that  manufacture  in  this  kingdom  is  so  com- 
pletely artificial,  that  any  attempt  to  introduce  the  principles  of  free 
trade  with  reference  to  it,  might  put  an  end  to  it  altogether.     I  allow 

z 


278 

that  the  silk  manufacture  is  not  natural  to  this  country.  J  wish  we  had 
never  had  a  silk  manufactory.  I  allow  that  it  is  natural  to  France;  I 
allow,  that  it  might  have  been  better,  had  each  country  adhered  ex- 
clusively to  that  manufacture  in  which  each  is  superior;  and  had 
the  silks  of  France  been  exchanged  for  British  cottons.  But  I 
must  look  at  things  as  they  are;  and  when  I  consider  the  extent  of 
capital,  and  the  immense  population,  consisting,  I  believe,  of  about 
50,000  persons  engaged  in  our  silk  manufacture,  I  can  only  say, 
that  one  of  the  few  points  in  which  I  totally  disagree  with  the  pro- 
poser of  the  motion,  is  the  expediency,  under  existing  circumstan- 
ces, of  holding  out  any  idea,  that  it  would  be  possible  to  relinquish 
the  silk  manufacture,  and  to  provide  for  those  who  live  by  it,  by 
parliamentary  enactment.  Whatever  objections  there  may  be  to 
the  continuance  of  the  protecting  system,  I  repeat,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible altogether  to  relinquish  it.  I  may  regret  that  the  system  was 
ever  commenced;  but  as  I  cannot  recall  that  act,  T  must  submit  to 
the  inconvenience  by  which  it  is  attended,  rather  than  expose  the 
country  to  evils  of  greater  magnitude."  Let  it  be  remembered, 
sir,  that  these  are  not  the  sentiments  of  a  theorist,  nor  the  fancies 
of  speculation;  but  the  operative  opinions  of  the  first  minister  of 
England,  acknowledged  to  be  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  practical 
statesmen  of  his  country.  Sir,  gentlemen  could  have  hardly  been 
more  unfortunate  than  in  the  selection  of  the  silk  manufacture  in 
England,  as  an  example  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  that  system 
which  they  would  recommend.  It  is,  in  the  language  which  I  have 
quoted,  completely  artificial.  It  has  been  sustained  by  I  know  not 
how  many  laws,  breaking  in  upon  the  plainest  principles  of  general 
expediency.  At  the  last  session  of  Parliament,  the  manufacturers 
petitioned  for  the  repeal  of  three  or  four  of  these  statutes,  complain- 
ing of  the  vexatious  restrictions  which  they  impose  on  the  wages  of 
labor;  setting  forth,  that  a  great  variety  of  orders  has  from  time  to 
time  been  issued  by  magistrates  under  the  authority  of  these  laws, 
interfering,  in  an  oppressive  manner,  with  the  minutest  details  of  the 
manufacture:  such  as  limiting  the  number  of  threads  to  an  inch;  re- 
stricting the  widths  of  many  sorts  of  work;  and  determining  the 
quantity  of  labor  not  to  be  exceeded  without  extra  wages:  that  by 
the  operation  of  these  laws,  the  rate  of  wages,  instead  of  being  left 
to  the  recognised  principles  of  regulation,  has  been  arbitrarily  fixed 
by  persons  whose  ignorance  renders  them  incompetent  to  a  just  de- 
cision; that  masters  are  compelled  by  law  to  pay  an  equal  price  for 
all  work,  whether  well  or  ill  performed;  and  that  they  are  totally 
prevented  the  use  of  improved  machinery,  it  being  ordered,  that 
work,  in  the  weaving  of  which  machinery  is  employed,  shall  be  paid 
precisely  at  the  same  rate  as  if  done  by  hand;  that  these  acts  have 
frequently  given  rise  to  the  most  vexatious  regulations,  the  uninten- 
tional breach  of  which  has  subjected  manufacturers  to  ruinous  penal- 
ties; and  that,  the  introduction  of  all  machinery  being  prevented,  by 
which  labor  might  be  cheapened,  and  the  manufacturers  being  com- 
pelled to  pay  at  a  fixed  price,  under  all  circumstances,  they  are  pre- 
vented from  affording  employment  to  their  workmen,  in  times  of  stag- 
nation of  trade,  but  are  compelled  to  stop  their  looms.  And  finally, 
they  complain,  that,  notwithstanding  these  grievances  under  which 


279 

they  labor,  while  carrying  on  their  manufacture  in  London,  the  law 
still  prohibits  them,  while  they  continue  to  reside  there,  irom  employ- 
ing any  portion  of  their  capital  in  the  same  business  in  an;  o^er  p  irt 
of  the  kingdom,  where  it  might  be  more  beneficially  conducted. — 
Now,  sir,  absurd  as  these  laws  must  appear  to  be  to  every  man,  the 
attempt  to  repeal  them  did  not,  as  far  as  I  recollect,  altogether  suc- 
ceed. The  weavers  were  too  numerous,  their  interests  too  great,  or 
their  prejudices  too  strong;  and  this  notable  instance  of  protection 
and  monopoly  still  exists,  to  be  lamented  in  England  with  as  much 
sincerity  as  it  seems  to  be  admired  here. 

In  order  further  to  show  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the  English 
government,  I  would  refer  to  a  report  of  a  select  committee  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  at  the  head  of  which  was  the  vice  president  of 
the  board  of  trade,  (Mr.  Wallace)  in  July,  1820.  "  The  time,"  say 
that  committee,  "  when  monopolies  could  be  successfully  supported, 
or  would  be  patiently  endured,  either  in  respect  to  subjects  against 
subjects,  or  particular  countries  against  the  rest  of  the  world,  seems 
to  have  passed  away.  Commerce,  to  continue  undisturbed  and 
secure,  must  be,  as  it  was  intended  to  be,  a  source  of  reciprocal 
amity  between  nations,  and  an  interchange  of  productions,  to  pro- 
mote the  industry,  the  wealth,  and  the  happiness,  of  mankind."  In 
moving  for  the  reappointment  of  the  committee,  in  February,  1823, 
the  same  gentleman  said;  "We  must  also  get  rid  of  that  feeling  of 
appropriation,  which  exhibited  itself  in  a  disposition  to  produce 
everything  necessary  for  our  own  consumption,  and  to  render  our- 
selves independent  of  the  world.  No  notion  could  be  more  absurd 
or  mischievous;  it  led,  even  in  peace,  to  an  animosity  and  rancor, 
greater  than  existed  in  time  of  war.  Undoubtedly  there  would  be 
great  prejudices  to  combat,  both  in  this  country  and  elsewhere,  in 
the  attempt  to  remove  the  difficulties  which  are  most  obnoxious.  It 
would  be  impossible  to  forget  the  attention  which  was  in  some  re- 
spects due  to  the  present  system  of  protections;  although  that  atten- 
tion ought  certainly  not  to  be  carried  beyond  the  absolute  necessity 
of  the  case."  And  in  a  second  report  of  the  committee,  drawn  by 
the  same  gentleman,  in  that  part  of  it  which  proposes  a  diminution  of 
duties  on  timber  from  the  north  of  Europe,  and  the  policy  of  giving 
a  legislative  preference  to  the  importation  of  such  timber  in  the  log, 
and  a  discouragement  of  the  importation  of  deals,  it  is  stated  that 
the  committee  reject  this  policy,  because,  among  other  reasons,  "  it 
is  founded  on  a  principle  of  exclusion,  which  they  are  most  averse 
to  see  brought  into  operation,  in  any  new  instance,  without  the  war- 
rant of  some  evident  and  great  political  expediency."  And  on  many 
subsequent  occasions,  the  same  gentleman  has  taken  occasion  to  ob- 
serve, that  he  differed  from  those  who  thought  that  manufactures 
could  not  flourish  without  restrictions  on  trade;  that  old  prejudices 
of  that  sort  were  dying  away,  and  that  more  liberal  and  just  senti- 
ments were  taking  their  place.  These  sentiments  appear  to  have 
been  followed  by  important  legal  provisions,  calculated  to  remove 
restrictions  and  prohibitions,  where  they  were  most  severely  felt; 
that  is  to  say,  in  several  branches  of  navigation  and  trade. 

They  have  relaxed  their  colonial  system,  they  have  opened  the 
ports  of  their  islands,  and  have  done  away  the  restriction  which  limi- 


280 

ted  the  trade  of  the  colony  to  the  mother  country.  Colonial  products 
can  now  be  carried  directly  from  the  islands  to  any  part  of  Europe; 
and  it  may  not  be  improbable,  considering  our  own  high  duties  on 
spirits,  that  that  article  may  be  exchanged  hereafter  by  the  English 
West  India  colonies,  directly,  for  the  timber  and  deals  of  the  Baltic. 

It  may  be  added  that  Mr.  Lowe,  whom  the  gentleman  has  cited, 
says,  that  nobody  supposes  that  the  three  great  staples  of  English 
manufactures,  cotton,  woollen,  and  hardware,  are  benefited  by  any 
existing  protecting  duties;  and  that  one  object  of  all  these  protect- 
ing laws  is  usually  overlooked,  and  that  is,  that  they  have  been  in- 
tended to  reconcile  the  various  interests  to  taxation:  the  corn  law, 
for  example,  being  designed  as  some  equivalent  to  the  agricultural 
interest  for  the  burden  of  tithes  and  of  poor  rates. 

In  fine,  sir,  I  think  it  is  clear,  that,  if  we  now  embrace  the  system 
of  prohibitions  and  restrictions,  we  shall  show  an  affection  for  what 
others  have  discarded,  and  be  attempting  to  ornament  ourselves  with 
cast  off  apparel.* 

Sir,  I  should  not  have  gone  into  this  prolix  detail  of  opinions  from 
any  consideration  of  their  special  importance  on  the  present  occa- 
sion; but,  having  happened  to  state,  that  such  was  the  actual  opinion 
of  the  government  of  England  at  the  present  time,  and  the  accuracy 
of  this  representation  having  been  so  confidently  denied,  I  have  cho- 
sen to  put  the  matter  beyond  doubt  or  cavil,  although  at  the  expense 
of  these  tedious  citations.  I  shall  have  occasion,  hereafter,  of  refer- 
ring more  particularly  to  sundry  recent  British  enactments,  by  way 
of  showing  the  diligence  and  spirit  with  which  that  government  strives 
to  sustain  its  navigating  interest,  by  opening  the  widest  possible  range 
to  the  enterprise  of  individual  adventurers.  I  repeat,  that  I  have 
not  alluded  to  these  examples  of  a  foreign  state  as  being  fit  to  con- 
trol our  own  policy.  In  the  general  principle,  I  acquiesce.  Protec- 
tion, when  carried  to  the  point  which  is  now  recommended,  that  is, 
to  entire  prohibition,  seems  to  me  destructive  of  all  commercial  in- 
tercourse between  nations.  We  are  urged  to  adopt  the  system  upon 
general  principles;  and  what  would  be  the  consequence  of  the  uni- 
versal application  of  such  a  general  principle,  but  that  nations  would 
abstain  entirely  from  all  intercourse  with  one  another?  I  do  not  ad- 
mit the  general  principle;  on  the  contrary,  I  think  freedom  of  trade 
to  be  the  general  principle,  and  restriction  the  exception.  And  it  is 
for  every  state,  taking  into  view  its  own  condition,  to  judge  of  the 
propriety,  in  any  case,  of  making  an  exception,  constantly  preferring, 
as  I  think  all  wise  governments  will,  not  to  depart  without  urgent 
reason  from  the  general  rule. 

There  is  another  point  in  the  existing  policy  of  England,  to  which 
I  would  most  earnestly  invite  the  attention  of  the  Committee;  I  mean 
the  warehouse  system,  or  what  we  usually  call  the  system  of  draw- 
back. Very  great  prejudices  appear  to  me  to  exist  with  us  on  that 
subject.  We  seem  averse  to  the  extension  of  the  principle.  The 
English  government,  on  the  contrary,  appear  to  have  carried  it  to  the 
extreme  of  liberality.  They  have  arrived,  however,  at  their  present 
opinions,  and  present  practice,  by  slow  degrees.  The  transit  sys- 
tem was  commenced  about  the  year  1803,  but  the  first  law  was  par- 
*  Vide  Note,  page  260. 


tial  and  limited.  It  admitted  the  importation  of  raw  materials  for 
exportation,  but  it  excluded  almost  every  sort  of  manufactured  goods. 
This  was  done  for  the  same  reason  that  we  propose  to  prevent  the 
transit  of  Canadian  wheat  through  the  United  States — the  fear  of 
aiding  the  competition  of  the  foreign  article  with  our  own,  in  foreign 
markets.  Better  reflection,  or  more  experience,  has  induced  them 
to  abandon  that  mode  of  reasoning,  and  to  consider  all  such  means 
of  influencing  foreign  markets  as  nugatory:  since,  in  the  present  ac- 
tive and  enlightened  state  of  the  world,  nations  will  supply  themselves 
from  the  best  sources,  and  the  true  policy  of  all  producers,  whether 
of  raw  materials,  or  of  manufactured  articles,  is,  not  vainly  to  en- 
deavour to  keep  other  venders  out  of  the  market,  but  to  conquer  them 
in  it,  by  the  quality  and  the  cheapness  of  their  articles.  The  present 
policy  of  England,  therefore,  is,  to  allure  the  importation  of  commo- 
dities into  England,  there  to  be  deposited  in  English  warehouses, 
thence  to  be  exported  in  assorted  cargoes,  and  thus  enabling  her  to 
carry  on  a  general  export  trade  to  all  quarters  of  the  globe.  Arti- 
cles of  all  kinds,  with  the  single  exception  of  tea,  may  be  brought 
into  England,  from  any  part  of  the  world,  in  foreign  as  well  as  Bri- 
tish ships,  there  warehoused,  and  again  exported,  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  owner,  without  the  payment  of  any  duty,  or  government  charge 
whatever. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  would  take  notice  also  of  the 
recent  proposition  in  the  English  Parliament  to  abolish  the  tax  on 
imported  wool;  and  it  is  observable,  that  those  who  support  this  pro- 
position, give  the  same  reasons  as  have  been  offered  here,  within  the 
last  week,  against  the  duty  which  we  propose  on  the  same  article. 
They  say,  that  their  manufacturers  require  a  cheap  and  coarse  wool, 
for  the  supply  of  the  Mediterranean  and  Levant  trade,  and  that,  with- 
out a  more  free  admission  of  the  wool  of  the  continent,  that  trade 
will  all  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Germans  and  Italians,  who  will  car- 
ry it  on  through  Leghorn  and  Trieste.  While  there  is  this  duty  on 
foreign  wool  to  protect  the  wool  growers  of  England,  there  is  on  the 
other  hand  a  prohibition  on  the  exportation  of  the  native  article,  in 
aid  of  the  manufacturers.  The  opinion  seems  to  be  gaining  strength, 
that  the  true  policy  is  to  abolish  both. 

Laws  have  long  existed  in  England,  preventing  the  emigration  of 
artisans,  and  the  exportation  of  machinery;  but  the  policy  of  these, 
also,  has  become  doubted,  and  an  inquiry  has  been  instituted  in  Par- 
liament into  the  expediency  of  repealing  them.  As  to  the  emigra- 
tion of  artisans,  say  those  who  disapprove  the  laws,  if  that  were 
desirable,  no  law  could  effect  it;  and  as  to  the  exportation  of  ma- 
chinery, let  us  fabricate  and  export  it,  as  we  would  any  other  commod- 
ity. If  France  is  determined  to  spin  and  weave  her  own  cotton,  let 
us,  if  we  may,  still  have  the  benefit  of  furnishing  the  machinery. 

I  have  stated  these  things,  sir,  to  show  what  seems  to  be  the  gen- 
eral tone  of  thinking  and  reasoning  on  these  subjects  in  that  country, 
the  example  of  which  has  been  so  much  pressed  upon  us.  Whether 
the  present  policy  of  England  be  right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise,  it 
cannot,  as  it  seems  clearly  to  me,  be  quoted  as  an  authority  for  car- 
rying further  the  restrictive  and  exclusive  system,  either  in  regard  to 
manufactures  or  trade.  To  reestablish  a  sound  currency,  to  meet 
36  z* 


282 

at  once  the  shock,  tremendous  as  it  was,  of  the  fall  of  prices,  to  en- 
large her  capacity  for  foreign  trade,  to  open  wide  the  field  of  indi- 
vidual enterprise  and  competition,  and  to  say,  plainly  and  distinctly, 
that  the  country  must  relieve  itself  from  the  embarrassments  which  it 
felt,  by  economy,  frugality,  and  renewed  efforts  of  enterprise;  these 
appear  to  be  the  general  outline  of  the  policy  which  England  has 
pursued. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  now  proceed  to  say  a  few  words  upon  a  top- 
ic, but,  for  the  introduction  of  which,  into  this  debate,  I  should  not 
have  given  the  Committee,  on  this  accasion,  the  trouble  of  hearing 
me.  Some  days  ago,  I  believe  it  was  when  we  were  settling  the 
controversy  between  the  oil  merchants  and  the  tallowchandlers,  the 
Balance  of  Trade  made  its  appearance  in  debate,  and  I  must  confess, 
sir,  that  I  spoke  of  it,  or  rather  spoke  to  it,  somewhat  freely  and  ir- 
reverently. I  believe  I  used  the  hard  names  which  have  been  im- 
puted to  me;  and  I  did  it  simply  for  the  purpose  of  laying  the  spectre, 
and  driving  it  back  to  its  tomb.  Certainly,  sir,  when  I  called  the 
old  notion  on  this  subject  nonsense,  I  did  not  suppose  that  I  should 
offend  any  one,  unless  the  dead  should  happen  to  hear  me.  All  the 
living  generation,  I  took  it  for  granted,  would  think  the  term  very 
properly  applied.  In  this,  however,  I  was  mistaken.  The  dead 
and  the  living  rise  up  together  to  call  me  to  account,  and  I  must  de- 
fend myself  as  well  as  I  am  able. 

Let  us  inquire,  then,  sir,  what  is  meant  by  an  unfavorable  balance 
of  trade,  and  what  the  argument  is,  drawn  from  that  source.  By  an 
unfavorable  balance  of  trade,  I  understand,  is  meant  that  state  of 
things  in  which  importation  exceeds  exportation.  To  apply  it  to  our 
own  case,  if  the  value  of  goods  imported,  exceed  the  value  of  those 
exported,  then  the  balance  of  trade  is  said  to  be  against  us,  inasmuch 
as  we  have  run  in  debt  to  the  amount  of  this  difference.  Therefore, 
it  is  said,  that,  if  a  nation  continue  long  in  a  commerce  like  this,  it 
must  be  rendered  absolutely  bankrupt.  It  is  in  the  condition  of  a 
man  that  buys  more  than  he  sells;  and  how  can  such  a  traffic  be  main- 
tained without  ruin?  Now,  sir,  the  whole  fallacy  of  this  argument 
consists  in  supposing  that,  whenever  the  value  of  imports  exceeds 
that  of  exports,  a  debt  is  necessarily  created  to  the  extent  of  the  dif- 
ference: whereas,  ordinarily,  the  import  is  no  more  than  the  result  of 
the  export,  augmented  in  value  by  the  labor  of  transportation.  The 
excess  of  imports  over  exports,  in  truth,  usually  shows  the  gains,  not 
the  losses,  of  trade ;  or,  in  a  country  that  not  only  buys  and  sells  goods, 
but  employs  ships  in  carrying  goods  also,  it  shows  the  profits  of  com- 
merce, and  the  earnings  of  navigation.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than 
that  in  the  usual  course  of  things,  and  taking  a  series  of  years  togeth- 
er, the  value  of  our  imports  is  the  aggregate  of  our  exports  and  our 
freights.  If  the  value  of  commodities,  imported  in  a  given  case,  did 
not  exceed  the  value  of  the  outward  cargo,  with  which  they  were 
purchased,  then  it  would  be  clear  to  every  man's  common  sense,  that 
the  voyage  had  not  been  profitable.  If  such  commodities  fell  far  short 
in  value  of  the  cost  of  the  outward  cargo,  then  the  voyage  would  be  a 
very  losing  one;  and  yet  it  would  present  exactly  that  state  of 
things,  which,  according  to  the  notion  of  a  balance  of  trade,  can  alone 
indicate  a  prosperous  commerce.     On  the  other  hand,  if  the  return 


283 

cargo  were  found  to  be  worth  much  more  than  the  outward  cargo, 
while  the  merchant,  having  paid  for  the  goods  exported,  and  all  the 
expenses  of  the  voyage,  finds  a  handsome  sum  yet  in  his  hands,  which 
he  calls  profits,  the  balance  of  trade  is  still  against  him,  and  whatever 
he  may  think  of  it,  he  is  in  a  very  bad  way.  Although  one  individ- 
ual, or  all  individuals  gain,  the  nation  loses;  while  all  its  citizens 
grow  rich,  the  country  grows  poor.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  6a/- 
ance  of  trade.  Allow  me,  sir,  to  give  an  instance  tending  to  show 
how  unaccountably  individuals  deceive  themselves,  and  imagine 
themselves  to  be  somewhat  rapidly  mending  their  condition,  while 
they  ought  to  be  persuaded  that,  by  that  infallible  standard,  the  bal- 
ance of  trade,  they  are  on  the  high  road  to  ruin.  Some  years  ago, 
in  better  times  than  the  present,  a  ship  left  one  of  the  towns  of 
New  England  with  70,000  specie  dollars.  She  proceeded  to  Mocha, 
on  the  Red  Sea,  and  there  laid  out  these  dollars  in  coffee,  drugs, 
spices,  &c.  With  this  new  cargo  she  proceeded  to  Europe;  two- 
thirds  of  it  were  sold  in  Holland  for  $130,000,  which  the  ship  brought 
back,  and  placed  in  the  same  Bank,  from  the  vaults  of  which  she 
had  taken  her  original  outfit.  The  other  third  was  sent  to  the  ports 
of  the  Mediterranean,  and  produced  a  return  of  25,000  dollars  in  spe- 
cie, and  15,000  dollars  in  Italian  merchandise.  These  sums  togeth- 
er make  170,000  dollars  imported,  which  is  100,000  dollars  more 
than  was  exported,  and  is  therefore  proof  of  an  unfavorable  balance 
of  trade,  to  that  amount,  in  this  adventure.  We  should  find  no  great 
difficulty,  sir,  in  paying  off  our  balances  if  this  were  the  nature  of 
them  all. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  ttyat  all  these  obsolete  and  exploded 
notions  had  their  origin  in  very  mistaken  ideas  of  the  true  nature  of 
commerce.  Commerce  is  not  a  gambling  among  nations  for  a  stake, 
to  be  won  by  some  and  lost  by  others.  It  has  not  the  tendency  ne- 
cessarily to  impoverish  one  of  the  parties  to  it,  while  it  enriches  the 
other;  all  parties  gain,  all  parties  make  profits,  all  parties  grow  rich, 
by  the  operations  of  just  and  liberal  commerce.  If  the  world  had 
but  one  clime,  and  but  one  soil;  if  all  men  had  the  same  wants  and 
the  same  means,  on  the  spot  of  their  existence,  to  gratify  those 
wants;  then,  indeed,  what  one  obtained  from  the  other  by  exchange, 
would  injure  one  party  in  the  same  degree  that  it  benefited  the  other; 
then,  indeed,  there  would  be  some  foundation  for  the  balance  of 
trade.  But  Providence  has  disposed  our  lot  much  more  kindly. 
We  inhabit  a  various  earth.  We  have  reciprocal  wants,  and  recip- 
rocal means  for  gratifying  one  another's  wants.  This  is  the  true 
origin  of  commerce,  which  is  nothing  more  than  an  exchange  of 
equivalents,  and  from  the  rude  barter  of  its  primitive  state,  to  the 
refined  and  complex  condition  in  which  we  see  it,  its  principle  is 
uniformly  the  same;  its  only  object  being,  in  every  stage,  to  produce 
that  exchange  of  commodities  between  individuals  and  between  na- 
tions, which  shall  conduce  to  the  advantage  and  to  the  happiness  of 
both.  Commerce  between  nations  has  the  same  essential  character, 
as  commerce  between  individuals,  or  between  parts  of  the  same  na- 
tion. Cannot  two  individuals  make  an  interchange  of  commodities 
which  shall  prove  beneficial  to  both,  or  in  which  the  balance  of  trade 
shall  be  in  favor  of  both  ?     If  not,  the  tailor  and  the  shoemaker,  the 


284 

farmer  and  the  smith,  have  hitherto  very  much  misunderstood  their 
own  interest.  And  with  regard  to  the  internal  trade  of  a  country, 
in  which  the  same  rule  would  apply  as  between  nations,  do  we  ever 
speak  of  such  an  intercourse  being  prejudicial  to  one  side  because 
it  is  useful  to  the  other?  Do  we  ever  hear  that,  because  the  inter- 
course between  New  York  and  Albany  is  advantageous  to  one  of 
those  places,  it  must  therefore  be  ruinous  to  the  other? 

May  I  be  allowed,  sir,  to  read  a  passage  on  this  subject  from  the 
observations  of  a  gentleman,  in  my  opinion  one  of  the  most  clear  and 
sensible  writers  and  speakers  of  the  age  upon  subjects  of  this  sort?* 
"  There  is  no  political  question  on  which  the  prevalence  of  false 
principles  is  so  general,  as  in  what  relates  to  the  nature  of  commerce 
and  to  the  pretended  balance  of  trade;  and  there  are  few  which  have 
led  to  a  greater  number  of  practical  mistakes,  attended  with  conse- 
quences extensively  prejudicial  to  the  happiness  of  mankind.  In 
this  country,  our  parliamentary  proceedings,  our  public  documents, 
and  the  works  of  several  able  and  popular  writers,  have  combined 
to  propagate  the  impression  that  we  are  indebted  for  much  of  our 
riches  to  what  is  called  the  balance  of  trade."  "  Our  true  policy 
would  surely  be  to  profess,  as  the  object  and  guide  of  our  com- 
mercial system,  that  which  every  man  who  has  studied  the  subject, 
must  know  to  be  the  true  principle  of  commerce,  the  interchange  of 
reciprocal  and  equivalent  benefit.  We  may  rest  assured  that  it  is  not 
in  the  nature  of  commerce  to  enrich  one  party  at  the  expense  of  the 
other.  This  is  a  purpose  at  which,  if  it  were  practicable,  we  ought 
not  to  aim;  and  which,  if  we  aimed  at,  we  could  not  accomplish." 
These  remarks,  I  believe,  sir,  were  written  some  ten  or  twelve  years 
ago.  They  are  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  opinions  advanced 
in  more  elaborate  treatises,  and  now  that  the  world  has  returned  to 
a  state  of  peace,  and  commerce  has  resumed  its  natural  channels, 
and  different  nations  are  enjoying,  or  seeking  to  enjoy,  their  respec- 
tive portions  of  it,  all  see  the  justness  of  these  ideas;  all  see,  that, 
in  this  day  of  knowledge  and  of  peace,  there  can  be  no  commerce 
between  nations  but  that  which  shall  benefit  all  who  are  parties  to  it. 

If  it  were  necessary,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  might  ask  the  attention  of 
the  Committee  to  recur  to  a  document  before  us,  on  this  subject,  of 
the  balance  of  trade.  It  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  accounts, 
that,  in  the  course  of  the  last  year,  our  total  export  to  Holland  ex- 
ceeded two  millions  and  a  half ;  our  total  import  from  the  same  coun- 
try was  but  700,000  dollars.  Now  can  any  man  be  wild  enough  to 
make  any  inference  from  this  of  the  gain  or  loss  of  our  trade  with 
Holland  for  that  year?  Our  trade  with  Russia  for  the  same  year, 
produced  a  balance  the  other  way;  our  import  being  two  millions, 
and  our  export  but  half  a  million.  But  this  has  no  more  tendency  to 
show  the  Russian  trade  a  losing  trade,  than  the  other  statement  has 
to  show  that  the  Dutch  trade  has  been  a  gainful  one.  Neither  of 
them,  by  itself,  proves  anything. 

Springing  out  of  this  notion  of  a  balance  of  trade,  there  has  been 

another  idea,  which  has  been  much  dwelt  upon  in  the  course  of  this 

debate;  that  is,  that  we  ought  not  to  buy  of  nations  who  do  not  buy  of 

us;  for  example,  that  the  Russian  trade  is  a  trade  disadvantageous  to 

*  Mr.  Huskisson,  President  of  the  English  Board  of  Trade. 


285 

the  country,  and  ought  to  be  discouraged,  because,  in  the  ports  of 
Russia,  we  buy  more  than  we  sell.  Now  allow  me  to  observe,  in  the 
first  place,  sir,  that  we  have  no  account  showing  how  much  we  do  sell 
in  the  ports  of  Russia.  Our  official  returns  show  us  only  what  is  the 
amount  of  our  direct  exports  to  her  ports.  But  then  we  all  know 
that  the  proceeds  of  other  of  our  exports  go  to  the  same  market,  though 
indirectly.  We  send  our  own  products,  for  example,  to  Cuba,  or  to 
Brazil;  we  there  exchange  them  for  the  sugar  and  the  coffee  of  those 
countries,  and  these  articles  we  carry  to  St.  Petersburg,  and  there  sell 
them.  Again;  our  exports  to  Holland  and  Hamburg  are  connected 
directly  or  indirectly  with  our  imports  from  Russia.  What  difference 
does  it  make,  in  sense  or  reason,  whether  a  cargo  of  iron  be  bought 
at  St.  Petersburg  by  the  exchange  of  a  cargo  of  tobacco,  or  whether 
the  tobacco  has  been  sold  on  the  way,  in  a  better  market,  in  a  port 
of  Holland,  the  money  remitted  to  England,  and  the  iron  paid  for  by 
a  bill  on  London?  There  might  indeed  have  been  an  augmented 
freight,  there  might  have  been  some  saving  of  commissions,  if  tobac- 
co had  been  in  brisk  demand  in  the  Russian  market.  But  still  there 
is  nothing  to  show  that  the  whole  voyage  may  not  have  been  highly 
profitable.  That  depends  upon  the  original  cost  of  the  article  here, 
the  amount  of  freight  and  insurance  to  Holland,  the  price  obtained 
there,  the  rate  of  exchange  between  Holland  and  England;  the  ex- 
pense, then,  of  proceeding  to  St.  Petersburg,  the  price  of  iron  there, 
the  rate  of  exchange  between  that  place  and  England,  the  amount 
of  freight  and  insurance  home,  and  finally,  the  value  of  the  iron, 
when  brought  to  our  own  market.  These  are  the  calculations  which 
determine  the  fortune  of  the  adventure;  and  nothing  can  be  judged 
of  it,  one  way  or  the  other,  by  the  relative  state  of  our  imports  or  ex- 
ports with  Holland,  England,  or  Russia. 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  deny  that  it  may  often  be  our  interest 
to  cultivate  a  trade  with  countries  that  most  require  such  commodi- 
ties as  we  can  furnish,  and  which  are  capable  also  of  directly  sup- 
plying our  own  wants.  This  is  the  simplest  and  most  original  form 
of  all  commerce,  and  is,  no  doubt,  highly  beneficial.  And  some 
countries  are  so  situated,  doubtless,  that  commerce,  in  this  original 
form,  or  something  near  it,  may  be  all  that  they  can,  without  consid- 
erable inconvenience,  carry  on.  Our  trade,  for  example,  with  Ma- 
deira and  the  Western  Islands,  has  been  useful  to  the  country  as 
furnishing  a  demand  for  some  portion  of  our  agricultural  products, 
which  probably  could  not  have  been  bought,  had  we  not  received 
their  products  in  return.  Countries  situated  still  farther  from  the 
great  marts  and  highways  of  the  commercial  world,  may  afford  still 
stronger  instances  of  the  necessity  and  utility  of  conducting  com- 
merce on  the  original  principle  of  barter,  without  much  assistance 
from  the  operations  of  credit  and  exchange.  All  I  would  be  under- 
stood to  say  is,  that  it  by  no  means  follows  that  that  must  be  a  losing 
trade  with  any  country,  from  which  we  receive  more  of  her  products 
than  she  receives  of  ours.  And  since  I  was  supposed  the  other  day, 
in  speaking  upon  this  subject,  to  have  advanced  opinions  which  not 
only  this  country  ought  to  reject,  but  which  also  other  countries,  and 
those  the  most  distinguished  for  skill  and  success  in  commercial  in- 
tercourse, do  reject,  I  will  ask  leave  to  refer  again  to  the  discussion 


286 

which  I  first  mentioned  in  the  English  Parliament,  relative  to  the 
foreign  trade  of  that  country.  "  With  regard,"  says  the  mover*  of 
the  proposition,  "  to  the  argument  employed  against  renewing  our 
intercourse  with  the  north  of  Europe,  namely,  that  those  who  supplied 
us  with  timber  from  that  quarter  would  not  receive  British  manufac- 
tures in  return,  it  appeared  to  him  futile  and  ungrounded.  If  they 
did  not  send  direct  for  our  manufactures  at  home,  they  would  send 
for  them  to  Leipsic  and  other  fairs  of  Germany.  Were  not  the 
Russian  and  Polish  merchants  purchasers  there  to  a  great  amount? 
But  he  would  never  admit  the  principle,  that  a  trade  was  not  profit- 
able, because  we  were  obliged  to  carry  it  on  with  the  precious  met- 
als, or  that  we  ought  to  renounce  it,  because  our  manufactures  were 
not  received  by  the  foreign  nation,  in  return  for  its  produce.  What- 
ever we  received  must  be  paid  for  in  the  produce  of  our  land  and 
labor,  directly  or  circuitously,  and  he  was  glad  to  have  the  noble 
Earl's  |  marked  concurrence  in  this  principle." 

Referring  ourselves  again,  sir,  to  the  analogies  of  common  life,  no 
one  would  say,  that  a  farmer  or  a  mechanic  should  buy  only  where  he 
can  do  so  by  the  exchange  of  his  own  produce,  or  of  his  own  manu- 
facture. Such  exchange  may  be  often  convenient;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  cash  purchase  may  be  often  more  convenient.  It  is  the  same 
in  the  intercourse  of  nations.  Indeed,  Mr.  Speaker  has  placed  this 
argument  on  very  clear  grounds.  It  has  been  said,  in  the  early  part 
of  the  debate,  that  if  we  cease  to  import  English  cotton  fabrics,  Eng- 
land would  no  longer  continue  to  purchase  our  cotton.  To  this,  Mr. 
Speaker  has  replied,  with  great  force  and  justice,  that,  as  she  must 
have  cotton  in  large  quantities,  she  will  buy  the  article  where  she  can 
find  it  best  and  cheapest;  and  that  it  would  be  quite  ridiculous  in  her, 
manufacturing  as  she  still  would  be,  for  her  own  vast  consumption, 
and  the  consumption  of  millions  in  other  countries,  to  reject  our 
uplands  because  we  had  learned  to  manufacture  a  part  of  them  for 
ourselves.  And  would  it  not  be  equally  ridiculous  in  us,  if  the  com- 
modities of  Russia  were  both  cheaper,  and  better  suited  to  our  wants, 
than  could  be  found  elsewhere,  to  abstain  from  commerce  with  her, 
because  she  will  not  receive,  in  return,  other  commodities  which  we 
have  to  sell,  but  which  she  has  no  occasion  to  buy? 

Intimately  connected,  sir,  with  this  topic,  is  another,  which  has  been 
brought  into  the  debate;  I  mean,  the  evil  so  much  complained  of — the 
exportation  of  specie.  We  hear  gentlemen  imputing  the  loss  of 
market  at  home  to  a  want  of  money,  and  this  want  of  money  to  the 
exportation  of  the  precious  metals.  We  hear  the  India  and  China 
trade  denounced,  as  a  commerce  conducted  on  our  side,  in  a  great 
measure,  with  gold  and  silver.  These  opinions,  sir,  are  clearly  void 
of  all  just  foundation,  and  we  cannot  too  soon  get  rid  of  them.  There 
are  no  shallower  reasoners,  than  those  political  and  commercial 
writers,  who  would  represent  it  to  be  the  only  true  and  gainful  end  of 
commerce,  to  accumulate  the  precious  metals.  These  are  articles  of 
use,  and  articles  of  merchandise,  with  this  additional  circumstance 
belonging  to  them,  that  they  are  made,  by  the  general  consent  of  na- 
tions, the  standard  by  which  the  value  of  all  other  merchandise  is  to 
be  estimated.     In  regard  to  weights  and  measures,  something  drawn 

*  Marquis  of  Lansdowne.  f  Lord  Liverpool. 


287 

from  external  nature  is  made  a  common  standard,  for  the  purposes  of 
general  convenience;  and  this  is  precisely  the  office  performed  by 
the  precious  metals,  in  addition  to  those  uses  to  which,  as  metals,  they 
are  capable  of  being  applied.  There  may  be  of  these,  too  much  or 
too  little,  in  a  country,  at  a  particular  time,  as  there  may  be  of  any 
other  articles.  When  the  market  is  overstocked  with  them,  as  it 
often  is,  their  exportation  becomes  as  proper  and  as  useful  as  that  of 
other  commodities,  under  similar  circumstances.  We  need  no  more 
repine,  when  the  dollars,  which  have  been  brought  here  from  South 
America,  are  despatched  to  other  countries,  than  when  coffee  and  su- 
gar take  the  same  direction.  We  often  deceive  ourselves  by  attribu- 
ting to  a  scarcity  of  money,  that  which  is  the  result  of  other  causes. 
In  the  course  of  this  debate,  the  honorable  member  from  Pennsyl- 
vania has  represented  the  country  as  full  of  everything  but  money. 
But  this,  I  take  to  be  a  mistake.  The  agricultural  products,  so 
abundant  in  Pennsylvania,  will  not,  he  says,  sell  for  money;  but  they 
will  sell  for  money  as  quick  as  for  any  other  article  which  happens  to 
be  in  demand.  They  will  sell  for  money,  for  example,  as  easily  as 
for  coffee,  or  for  tea,  at  the  prices  which  properly  belong  to  those 
articles.  The  mistake  lies  in  imputing  that  to  want  of  money,  which 
arises  from  want  of  demand.  Men  do  not  buy  wheat  because  they 
have  money,  but  because  they  want  wheat.  To  decide  whether 
money  be  plenty  or  not,  that  is,  whether  there  be  a  large  portion 
of  capital  unemployed  or  not,  when  the  currency  of  a  country  is 
metallic,  we  must  look,  not  only  to  the  prices  of  commodities, 
but  also  to  the  rate  of  interest.  A  low  rate  of  interest,  a  facility  of 
obtaining  money  on  loans,  a  disposition  to  invest  in  permanent 
stocks,  all  of  which  are  proofs  that  money  is  plenty,  may  neverthe- 
less often  denote  a  state  not  of  the  highest  prosperity.  They 
may,  and  often  do,  show  a  want  of  employment  for  capital;  and 
the  accumulation  of  specie  shows  the  same  thing.  We  have  no 
occasion  for  the  precious  metals  as  money,  except  for  the  purposes 
of  circulation,  or  rather  of  sustaining  a  safe  paper  circulation. 
And  whenever  there  be  a  prospect  of  a  profitable  investment  abroad, 
all  the  gold  and  silver,  except  what  these  purposes  require,  will 
be  exported.  For  the  same  reason,  if  a  demand  exist  abroad  for 
sugar  and  coffee,  whatever  amount  of  those  articles  might  exist  in 
the  country,  beyond  the  wants  of  its  own  consumption,  would 
be  sent  abroad  to  meet  that  demand.  Besides,  sir,  how  should  it 
ever  occur  to  anybody,  that  we  should  continue  to  export  gold 
and  silver,  if  we  did  not  continue  to  import  them  also?  If  a  vessel 
take  our  own  products  to  the  Havana,  or  elsewhere,  exchange  them 
for  dollars,  proceed  to  China,  exchange  them  for  silks  and  teas, 
bring  these  last  to  the  ports  of  the  Mediterranean,  sell  them  there 
for  dollars,  and  return  to  the  United  States;  this  would  be  a  voyage 
resulting  in  the  importation  of  the  precious  metals.  But  if  she  had 
returned  from  Cuba,  and  the  dollars  obtained  there  had  been  ship- 
ped direct  from  the  United  States  to  China,  the  China  goods  sold 
in  Holland,  and  the  proceeds  brought  home  in  the  hemp  and  iron  of 
Russia,  this  would  be  a  voyage  in  which  they  were  exported.  Yet 
everybody  sees,  that  both  might  be  equally  beneficial  to  the  individ- 
uals and  to  the  public.     I  believe,  sir,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  we  have 


288 

enjoyed  great  benefit  in  our  trade  with  India  and  China,  from  the 
liberty  of  going  from  place  to  place  all  over  the  world,  without  being 
obliged  in  the  meantime,  to  return  home — a  liberty  not  heretofore 
enjoyed  by  the  private  traders  of  England,  in  regard  to  India  and 
China.  Suppose  the  American  ship  to  be  at  Brazil,  for  example — 
she  could  proceed  with  her  dollars  direct  to  India,  and,  in  return, 
could  distribute  her  cargo  in  all  the  various  ports  of  Europe,  or 
America:  while  an  English  ship,  if  a  private  trader,  being  at  Brazil, 
must  first  return  to  England,  and  then  could  only  proceed  in  the  di- 
rect line  from  England  to  India.  This  advantage,  our  countrymen 
have  not  been  backward  to  improve;  and  in  the  debate  to  which  I 
have  already  so  often  referred,  it  was  stated,  not  without  some  com- 
plaint of  the  inconvenience  of  exclusion,  and  the  natural  sluggish- 
ness of  monopoly,  that  American  ships  were  at  that  moment  fitting 
out  in  the  Thames,  to  supply  France,  Holland,  and  other  countries 
on  the  continent,  with  tea;  while  the  East  India  Company  would 
not  do  this  of  themselves,  nor  allow  any  of  their  fellow  countrymen 
to  do  it  for  them. 

There  is  yet  another  subject,  Mr.  Chairman,  upon  which  I  would 
wish  to  say  something,  if  I  might  presume  upon  the  continued  pa- 
tience of  the  Committee.  We  hear,  sometimes,  in  the  House,  and 
continually  out  of  it,  of  the  rate  of  exchange,  as  being  one  proof 
that  we  are  on  the  downward  road  to  ruin.  Mr.  Speaker  himself 
has  adverted  to  that  topic,  and  I  am  afraid  that  his  authority  may 
give  credit  to  opinions  clearly  unfounded,  and  which  lead  to  very 
false  and  erroneous  conclusions.  Sir,  let  us  see  what  the  facts  are. 
Exchange  on  England  has  recently  risen  one  or  one  and  a  half  per 
cent.,  partly  owing,  perhaps,  to  the  introduction  of  this  bill  into  Con- 
gress. Before  this  recent  rise,  and  for  the  last  six  months,  I  under- 
stand its  average  may  have  been  about  seven  and  a  half  per  cent, 
advance.  Now,  supposing  this  to  be  the  real,  and  not  merely,  as  it 
is,  the  nominal  par  of  exchange,  between  us  and  England,  what 
would  it  prove?  Nothing,  except  that  funds  were  wanted,  in  Eng- 
land, for  commercial  operations,  to  be  carried  on  either  in  England 
or  elsewhere.  It  would  not  necessarily  show  that  we  were  indebted 
to  England:  for,  if  we  had  occasion  to  pay  debts  in  Russia  or  Hol- 
land, funds  in  England  would  naturally  enough  be  required  for  such 
a  purpose.  And  even  if  it  did  prove  that  a  balance  was  due  Eng- 
land, at  the  moment,  it  would  have  no  tendency  to  explain  to  us 
whether  our  commerce  with  England  had  been  profitable  or  unprofit- 
able. But  it  is  not  true,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  real  price  of  ex- 
change is  seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  advance,  nor,  indeed,  that  there 
is,  at  the  present  moment,  any  advance  at  all.  That  is  to  say,  it  is 
not  true,  that  merchants  will  give  such  an  advance,  or  any  advance, 
for  money  in  England,  more  than  they  would  give  for  the  same  amount, 
in  the  same  currency,  here.  It  will  strike  every  one,  who  reflects 
upon  it,  that,  if  there  were  a  real  difference  of  seven  and  a  half  per 
cent,  money  would  be  immediately  shipped  to  England;  because  the 
expense  of  transportation  would  be  far  less  than  that  difference.  Or, 
commodities  of  trade  would  be  shipped  to  Europe,  and  the  proceeds 
remitted  to  England.  If  it  could  so  happen,  that  American  merchants 
should  be  willing  to  pay  ten  per  cent,  premium  for  money  in  England, 


289 

or,  in  other  words,  that  a  real  difference  to  that  amount,  in  the  ex- 
change, should  exist,  its  effects  would  be  immediately  seen  in  new 
shipments  of  our  own  commodities  to  Europe,  because  this  state  of 
things  would  create  new  motives.  A  cargo  of  tobacco,  for  example, 
might  sell  at  Amsterdam  for  the  same  price  as  before;  but  if  its  pro- 
ceeds, when  remitted  to  London,  were  advanced,  as  they  would  be 
in  such  case,  ten  per  cent,  by  the  state  of  exchange,  this  would  be 
so  much  added  to  the  price,  and  would  operate,  therefore,  as  a  mo- 
tive for  the  exportation;  and  in  this  way,  national  balances  are,  and 
always  will  be,  adjusted. 

To  form  any  accurate  idea  of  the  true  state  of  exchange,  between 
two  countries,  we  must  look  at  their  currencies,  and  compare  the 
quantities  of  gold  and  silver  which  they  may  respectively  represent. 
This  usually  explains  the  state  of  the  exchanges;  and  this  will  satis- 
factorily account  for  the  apparent  advance,  now  existing,  on  bills 
drawn  on  England.  The  English  standard  of  value  is  gold:  with  us, 
that  office  is  performed  by  gold,  and  by  silver  also,  at  a  fixed  relation 
to  each  other.  But  our  estimate  of  silver  is  rather  higher,  in  pro- 
portion to  gold,  than  most  nations  give  it;  it  is  higher,  especially,  than 
in  England,  at  the  present  moment.  The  consequence  is,  that  silver, 
which  remains  a  legal  currency  with  us,  stays  here,  while  the  gold 
has  gone  abroad;  verifying  the  universal  truth,  that,  if  iwo  curren- 
cies be  allowed  to  exist,  of  different  values,  that  which  is  cheapest 
will  fill  up  the  whole  circulation.  For  as  much  gold  as  will  suffice 
to  pay  here  a  debt  of  a  given  amount,  we  can  buy  in  England  more 
silver  than  would  be  necessary  to  pay  the  same  debt  here;  and  from 
this  difference  in  the  value  of  silver  arises  wholly,  or  in  a  great 
measure,  the  present  apparent  difference  in  exchange.  Spanish 
dollars  sell  now,  in  England,  for  four  shillings  and  nine  pence  sterl- 
ing per  ounce;  equal  to  one  dollar  and  six  cents.  By  our  standard, 
the  same  ounce  is  worth  one  dollar  and  sixteen  cents;  being  a  differ- 
ence of  about  nine  per  cent.  The  true  par  of  exchange,  therefore, 
is  nine  per  cent.  If  a  merchant  here  pay  one  hundred  Spanish 
dollars  for  a  bill  on  England,  at  nominal  par,  in  sterling  money,  that 
is,  for  a  bill  for  ,£22  10,  the  proceeds  of  this  bill,  when  paid  in  Eng- 
land, in  the  legal  currency,  will  there  purchase,  at  the  present  price 
of  silver,  one  hundred  and  nine  Spanish  dollars.  Therefore,  if  the 
nominal  advance  on  English  bills  do  not  exceed  nine  pe  cent,  the 
real  exchange  is  not  against  this  country;  in  other  words,  it  does  not 
show  that  there  is  any  pressing  or  particular  occasion  for  the  remit- 
tance of  funds  to  England. 

As  little  can  be  inferred  from  the  occasional  transfer  of  United 
States'  stock  to  England.  Considering  the  interest  paid  on  our 
stocks,  the  entire  stability  of  our  credit,  and  the  accumulation  of  cap- 
ital in  England,  it  is  not  at  all  wonderful  that  investments  should 
occasionally  be  made  in  our  funds.  As  a  sort  of  countervailing  fact, 
it  may  be  stated  that  English  stocks  are  now  actually  holden  in  this 
country,  though  probably  not  to  any  considerable  amount. 

I  will  now  proceed,  sir,  to  state  some  objections  which  I  feel,  of  a 
more  general  nature,  to  the  course  of  Mr.  Speaker's  observations. 

He  seems  to  me  to  argue  the  question  as  if  all  domestic  industry 
were  confined  to  the  production  of  manufactured  articles;  as  if  the 
37  aa 


290 

employment  of  our  own  capital,  and  our  own  labor,  in  the  occupations 
of  commerce  and  navigation,  were  not  as  emphatically  domestic  in- 
dustry as  any  other  occupation.  Some  other  gentlemen,  in  the 
course  of  the  debate,  have  spoken  of  the  price  paid  for  every  foreign 
manufactured  article,  as  so  much  given  for  the  encouragement  of 
foreign  labor,  to  the  prejudice  of  our  own.  But  is  not  every  such 
article  the  product  of  our  own  labor  as  truly  as  if  we  had  manufac- 
tured it  ourselves?  Our  labor  has  earned  it,  and  paid  the  price  for 
it.  It  is  so  much  added  to  the  stock  of  national  wealth.  If  the  com- 
modity were  dollars,  nobody  would  doubt  the  truth  of  this  remark; 
and  it  is  precisely  as  correct  in  its  application  to  any  other  commodity 
as  to  silver.  One  man  makes  a  yard  of  cloth  at  home;  another  raises 
agricultural  products,  and  buys  a  yard  of  imported  cloth.  Both  these 
are  equally  the  earnings  of  domestic  industry,  and  the  only  questions 
that  arise  in  the  case  are  two:  the  first  is,  which  is  the  best  mode, 
under  all  the  circumstances,  of  obtaining  the  article;  the  second  is, 
how  far  this  first  question  is  proper  to  be  decided  by  government,  and  how 
far  it  is  proper  to  be  left  to  individual  discretion.  There  is  no  foundation 
for  the  distinction  which  attributes  to  certain  employments  the  pecu- 
liar appellation  of  American  industry;  and  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  ex- 
tremely unwise,  to  attempt  such  discriminations.  We  are  asked 
what  nations  have  ever  attained  eminent  prosperity  without  encour- 
aging manufactures?  I  may  ask,  what  nation  ever  reached  the  like 
prosperity  without  promoting  foreign  trade  ?  I  regard  these  interests 
as  closely  connected,  and  am  of  opinion  that  it  should  be  our  aim  to 
cause  them  to  flourish  together.  I  know  it  would  be  very  easy  to 
promote  manufactures,  at  least  for  a  time,  but  probably  only  for  a 
short  time,  if  we  might  act  in  disregard  of  other  interests.  We  could 
cause  a  sudden  transfer  of  capital,  and  a  violent  change  in  the  pur- 
suits of  men.  We  could  exceedingly  benefit  some  classes  by  these 
means.  But  what,  then,  becomes  of  the  interests  of  others?  The 
power  of  collecting  revenue  by  duties  on  imports,  and  the  habit  of 
the  government  of  collecting  almost  its  whole  revenue  in  that  mode, 
will  enable  us,  without  exceeding  the  bounds  of  moderation,  to  give 
great  advantages  to  those  classes  of  manufactures  which  we  may 
think  most  useful  to  promote  at  home.  What  I  object  to  is  the  im- 
moderate use  of  the  power — exclusions  and  prohibitions;  all  of 
which,  as  I  think,  not  only  interrupt  the  pursuits  of  individuals,  with 
great  injury  to  themselves,  and  little  or  no  benefit  to  the  country, 
but  also  often  divert  our  own  labor,  or,  as  it  may  very  properly  be 
called,  our  own  domestic  industry,  from  those  occupations  in  which 
it  is  well  employed  and  well  paid,  to  others,  in  which  it  will  be  worse 
employed,  and  worse  paid.  For  my  part,  I  see  very  little  relief  to 
those  who  are  likely  to  be  deprived  of  their  employments,  or  who 
find  the  prices  of  the  commodities  which  they  need,  raised,  in  any 
of  the  alternatives  which  Mr.  Speaker  has  presented.  It  is  nothing 
to  say  that  they  may,  if  they  choose,  continue  to  buy  the  foreign 
article;  the  answer  is,  the  price  is  augmented:  nor  that  they  may 
use  the  domestic  article;  the  price  of  that  also  is  increased.  Nor 
can  they  supply  themselves  by  the  substitution  of  their  own  fabric. 
How  can  the  agriculturist  make  his  own  iron?  How  can  the  ship 
owner  grow  his  own  hemp  ? 


291 

But  I  have  a  yet  stronger  objection  to  the  course  of  Mr.  Speak- 
er's reasoning;  which  is,  that  he  leaves  out  of  the  case  all  that  has 
been  already  done  for  the  protection  of  manufactures,  and  argues 
the  question  as  if  those  interests  were  now,  for  the  first  time,  to  re- 
ceive aid  from  duties  on  imports.  I  can  hardly  express  the  surprise 
I  feel  that  Mr.  Speaker  should  fall  into  the  common  modes  of  ex- 
pression used  elsewhere,  and  ask  if  we  will  give  our  manufacturers 
no  protection.  Sir,  look  to  the  history  of  our  laws;  look  to  the 
present  state  of  our  laws.  Consider  that  our  whole  revenue,  with 
a  trifling  exception,  is  collected  at  the  custom-house,  and  always 
has  been;  and  then  say  what  propriety  there  is  in  calling  on  the 
government  for  protection,  as  if  no  protection  had  heretofore  been 
afforded.  The  real  question  before  us,  in  regard  to  all  the  im- 
portant clauses  of  the  bill,  is  not  whether  we  will  lay  duties,  but 
whether  we  will  augment  duties.  The  demand  is  for  something  more 
than  exists,  and  yet  it  is  pressed  as  if  nothing  existed.  It  is  wholly 
forgotten  that  iron  and  hemp,  for  example,  already  pay  a  very  heavy 
and  burdensome  duty;  and,  in  short,  from  the  general  tenor  of 
Mr.  Speaker's  observations,  one  would  infer  that,  hitherto,  we  had 
rather  taxed  our  own  manufactures  than  fostered  them  by  taxes  on 
those  of  other  countries.  We  hear  of  the  fatal  policy  of  the  tariff 
of  1816;  and  yet  the  law  of  1816  was  passed  avowedly  for  the 
benefit  of  manufacturers,  and,  with  very  {ew  exceptions,  imposed 
on  imported  articles  very  great  additions  of  tax;  in  some  important 
instances,  indeed,  amounting  to  a  prohibition. 

Sir,  on  this  subject  it  becomes  us  at  least  to  understand  the  real 
posture  of  the  question.  Let  us  not  suppose  that  we  are  beginning 
the  protection  of  manufactures,  by  duties  on  imports.  What  we 
are  asked  to  do  is,  to  render  those  duties  much  higher,  and  there- 
fore, instead  of  dealing  in  general  commendations  of  the  benefits 
of  protection,  the  friends  of  the  bill,  I  think,  are  bound  to  make  out 
a  fair  case  for  each  of  the  manufactures  which  they  propose  to  ben- 
efit. The  government  has  already  done  much  for  their  protection, 
and  it  ought  to  be  presumed  to  have  done  enough,  unless  it  be 
shown,  by  the  facts  and  considerations  applicable  to  each,  that  there 
is  a  necessity  for  doing  more. 

On  the  general  question,  sir,  allow  me  to  ask  if  the  doctrine  of 
prohibition,  as  a  general  doctrine,  be  not  preposterous?  Suppose 
all  nations  to  act  upon  it;  they  would  be  prosperous,  then,  accord- 
ing to  the  argument,  precisely  in  the  proportion  in  which  they  abol- 
ished intercourse  with  one  another.  The  less  of  mutual  commerce 
the  better,  upon  this  hypothesis.  Protection  and  encouragement 
may  be,  and  are,  doubtless,  sometimes,  wise  and  beneficial,  if  kept 
within  proper  limits;  but,  when  carried  to  an  extravagant  height,  or 
the  point  of  prohibition,  the  absurd  character  of  the  system  mani- 
fests itself.  Mr.  Speaker  has  referred  to  the  late  Emperor  Napo- 
leon, as  having  attempted  to  naturalize  the  manufacture  of  cotton 
in  France.  He  did  not  cite  a  more  extravagant  part  of  the  projects 
of  that  ruler,  that  is,  his  attempt  to  naturalize  the  growth  of  that 
plant  itself  in  France;  whereas,  we  have  understood  that  consider- 
able districts  in  the  south  of  France,  and  in  Italy,  of  rich  and  pro- 
ductive lands,  were  at  one  time  withdrawn  from  profitable  uses,  and 


292 

devoted  to  raising,  at  great  expense,  a  little  bad  cotton.  Nor  have 
we  been  referred  to  the  attempts,  under  the  same  system,  to  make 
sugar  and  coffee  from  common  culinary  vegetables;  attempts  which 
served  to  fill  the  print  shops  of  Europe,  and  to  show  us  how  easy 
is  the  transition  from  what  some  think  sublime,  to  that  which  all 
admit  to  be  ridiculous.  The  folly  of  some  of  these  projects  has 
not  been  surpassed,  nor  hardly  equalled,  unless  it  be  by  the  philo- 
sopher in  one  of  the  satires  of  Swift,  who  so  long  labored  to  extract 
sunbeams  from  cucumbers.* 

The  poverty  and  unhappiness  of  Spain  have  been  attributed  to  the 
want  of  protection  to  her  own  industry.  If  by  this  it  be  meant  that 
the  poverty  of  Spain  is  owing  to  bad  government  and  bad  laws,  the 
remark  is,  in  a  great  measure,  just.  But  these  very  laws  are  bad 
because  they  are  restrictive,  partial,  and  prohibitory.  If  prohibition 
were  protection,  Spain  would  seem  to  have  had  enough  of  it.  No- 
thing can  exceed  the  barbarous  rigidity  of  her  colonial  system,  or  the 
folly  of  her  early  commercial  regulations.  Unenlightened  and  big- 
oted legislation,  the  multitude  of  holydays,  miserable  roads,  monop- 
olies on  the  part  of  government,  restrictive  laws,  that  ought  long 
since  to  have  been  abrogated,  are  generally,  and  I  believe  truly, 
reckoned  the  principal  causes  of  the  bad  state  of  the  productive 
industry  of  Spain.  Any  partial  improvement  in  her  condition,  or 
increase  of  her  prosperity,  has  been,  in  all  cases,  the  result  of 
relaxation,  and  the  abolition  of  what  was  intended  for  favor  and 
protection. 

In  short,  sir,  the  general  sense  of  this  age  sets,  with  a  strong  cur- 
rent, in  favor  of  freedom  of  commercial  intercourse,  and  unrestrain- 
ed individual  action.  Men  yield  up  their  notions  of  monopoly  and 
restriction,  as  they  yield  up  other  prejudices,  slowly  and  reluctantly; 
but  they  cannot  withstand  the  general  tide  of  opinion. 

Let  me  now  ask,  sir,  what  relief  this  bill  proposes  to  some  of  those 
great  and  essential  interests  of  the  country,  the  condition  of  which 
has  been  referred  to  as  proof  of  national  distress;  and  which  condi- 
tion, although  I  do  not  think  it  makes  out  a  case  of  distress,  yet  does 
indicate  depression. 

And  first,  sir,  as  to  our  Foreign  Trade.  Mr.  Speaker  has  stated 
that  there  has  been  a  considerable  falling  off  in  the  tonnage  employed 
in  that  trade.  This  is  true,  lamentably  true.  In  my  opinion,  it  is 
one  of  those  occurrences  which  ought  to  arrest  our  immediate,  our 
deep,  our  most  earnest  attention.  What  does  this  bill  propose  for 
its  relief?  Sir,  it  proposes  nothing  but  new  burdens.  It  proposes 
to  diminish  its  employment,  and  it  proposes,  at  the  same  time,  to  aug- 
ment its  expense,  by  subjecting  it  to  heavier  taxation.  Sir,  there  is 
no  interest,  in  regard  to  which  a  stronger  case  for  protection  can  be 
made  out,  than  the  navigating  interest.     Whether  we  look  at  its 

*  "  The  first  man  I  saw  was  of  a  meagre  aspect,  with  sooty  hands  and  face.  His  hair 
and  beard  long,  ragged,  and  singed  in  several  places.  His  clothes,  shirt,  and  skin,  were 
all  of  the  same  color.  He  had  been  eight  years  upon  a  project  for  extracting  sunbeams 
out  of  cucumbers,  which  were  to  be  put  into  phials  hermetically  sealed,  and  let  out  to  warm 
the  air,  in  raw  and  inclement  summers.  He  told  me,  he  did  not  doubt,  in  eight  years  more, 
he  should  be  able  to  supply  the  Governor's  gardens  with  sunshine,  at  a  reasonable  rat^;  but 
he  complained  that  his  stock  was  low,  and  entreated  me  to  give  him  something  as  an  en- 
couragement to  ingenuity,  especially  as  this  had  been  a  dear  season  for  cucumbers." 


293 

present  condition,  which  is  admitted  to  be  depressed;  the  number  of 
persons  connected  with  it,  and  dependent  upon  it  for  their  daily 
bread;  or  its  importance  to  the  country  in  a  political  point  of  view, 
it  has  claims  upon  our  attention  which  cannot  be  exceeded.  But 
what  do  we  propose  to  do  for  it?  I  repeat,  sir,  simply  to  burden  and 
to  tax  it.  By  a  statement  which  I  have  already  submitted  to  the 
Committee,  it  appears  that  the  shipping  interest  pays,  annually,  more 
than  half  a  million  of  dollars  in  duties  on  articles  used  in  the  con- 
struction of  ships.  We  propose  to  add  nearly,  or  quite,  fifty  per 
cent,  to  this  amount,  at  the  very  moment  that  we  bring  forth  the  lan- 
guishing state  of  this  interest,  as  a  proof  of  national  distress.  Let 
it  be  remembered  that  our  shipping  employed  in  foreign  commerce, 
has,  at  this  moment,  not  the  shadow  of  government  protection.  It 
goes  abroad  upon  the  wide  sea  to  make  its  own  way,  and  earn  its  own 
bread,  in  a  professed  competition  with  the  whole  world.  Its  resour- 
ces are  its  own  frugality,  its  own  skill,  its  own  enterprise.  It  hopes 
to  succeed,  if  it  shall  succeed  at  all,  not  by  extraordinary  aid  of  gov- 
ernment, but  by  patience,  vigilance,  and  toil.  This  right  arm  of 
the  nation's  safety  strengthens  its  own  muscle  by  its  own  efforts, 
and  by  unwearied  exertion  in  its  own  defence  becomes  strong  for  the 
defence  of  the  country. 

No  one  acquainted  with  this  interest,  can  deny  that  its  situation,  at 
this  moment,  is  extremely  critical.  We  have  left  it  hitherto  to  main- 
tain itself  or  perish ;  to  swim  if  it  can,  and  to  sink  if  it  cannot.  But  at 
this  moment  of  its  apparent  struggle,  can  we,  as  men,  can  we,  as 
patriots,  add  another  stone  to  the  weight  that  threatens  to  carry  it 
down?  Sir,  there  is  a  limit  to  human  power,  and  to  human  effort. 
I  know  the  commercial  marine  of  this  country  can  do  almost  every- 
thing, and  bear  almost  everything.  Yet  some  things  are  impossible 
to  be  done;  and  some  burdens  may  be  impossible  to  be  borne;  and 
as  it  was  the  last  ounce  that  broke  the  back  of  the  camel,  so  the  last 
tax,  although  it  were  even  a  small  one,  may  be  decisive  as  to  the 
power  of  our  marine,  to  sustain  the  conflict  in  which  it  is  now  en- 
gaged, with  all  the  commercial  nations  on  the  globe. 

Again,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  failures  and  the  bankruptcies  which  have 
taken  place  in  our  large  cities,  have  been  mentioned  as  proving  the 
little  success  attending  commerce,  and  its  general  decline.  But  this 
bill  has  no  balm  for  those  wounds.  It  is  very  remarkable,  that,  when 
losses  and  disasters  of  certain  manufacturers,  those  of  iron,  for  in- 
stance, are  mentioned,  it  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  invoking  aid  for 
the  distressed.  Not  so  with  the  losses  and  disasters  of  commerce; 
these  last  are  narrated,  and  not  unfrequently  much  exaggerated,  to 
prove  the  ruinous  nature  of  the  employment,  and  to  show  that  it 
ought  to  be  abandoned,  and  the  capital  engaged  in  it  turned  to  other 
objects. 

It  has  been  often  said,  sir,  that  our  manufactures  have  to  contend, 
not  only  against  the  natural  advantages  of  those  who  produce  similar 
articles  in  foreign  countries,  but  also  against  the  action  of  foreign 
governments,  who  have  great  political  interest  in  aiding  their  own 
manufactures  to  suppress  ours.  But  have  not  these  governments  as 
great  an  interest  to  cripple  our  marine,  by  preventing  the  growth  of 
our  commerce  and  navigation?    What  is  it  that  makes  us  the  object 

AA* 


294 

of  the  highest  respect,  or  the  most  suspicious  jealousy,  to  foreign 
states?  What  is  it  that  most  enables  us  to  take  high  relative  rank 
among  the  nations?  I  need  not  say  that  this  results,  more  than  from 
anything  else,  from  that  quantity  of  military  power  which  we  can 
cause  to  be  water  borne,  and  of  that  extent  of  commerce,  which  we 
are  able  to  maintain  throughout  the  world. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  conscious  of  having  detained  the  Committee 
much  too  long  with  these  observations.  My  apology  for  now  proceed- 
ing to  some  remarks  upon  the  particular  clauses  of  the  Bill,  is,  that, 
representing  a  district,  at  once  commercial  and  highly  manufacturing, 
and  being  called  upon  to  vote  upon  a  Bill,  containing  provisions  so 
numerous,  and  so  various,  I  am  naturally  desirous  to  state  as  well 
what  I  approve,  as  what  I  would  reject. 

The  first  section  proposes  an  augmented  duty  upon  woollen  manu- 
factures. This,  if  it  were  unqualified,  would  no  doubt  be  desirable 
to  those  who  are  engaged  in  that  business.  I  have  myself  presented 
a  petition  from  the  woollen  manufacturers  of  Massachusetts,  praying 
an  augmented  ad  valorem  duty  upon  imported  woollen  cloths;  and  I  am 
prepared  to  accede  to  that  proposition,  to  a  reasonable  extent.  But 
then  this  Bill  proposes,  also,  a  very  high  duty  upon  imported  wool; 
and,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  a  majority  of  the  manufacturers  are  at  least 
extremely  doubtful  whether,  taking  these  two  provisions  together,  the 
state  of  the  law  is  not  better  for  them  now,  than  it  would  be  if  this 
Bill  should  pass.  It  is  said,  this  tax  on  raw  wool  will  benefit  the  agri- 
culturist; but  I  know  it  to  be  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  best  inform- 
ed of  that  class,  that  it  will  do  them  more  hurt  than  good.  They 
fear  it  will  check  the  manufacturer,  and  consequently  check  his 
demand  for  their  article.  The  argument  is,  that  a  certain  quantity 
of  coarse  wool,  cheaper  than  we  can  possibly  furnish,  is  necessary 
to  enable  the  manufacturer  to  carry  on  the  general  business,  and 
that  if  this  cannot  be  had,  the  consequence  will  be,  not  a  greater, 
but  a  less,  manufacture  of  our  own  wool.  I  am  aware  that  very 
intelligent  persons  differ  upon  this  point;  but,  if  we  may  safely  infer 
from  that  difference  of  opinion,  that  the  proposed  benefit  is  at  least 
doubtful,  it  would  be  prudent  perhaps  to  abstain  from  the  experi- 
ment. Certain  it  is,  that  the  same  course  of  reasoning  has  occurred, 
as  I  have  before  stated,  on  the  same  subject,  when  a  renewed  appli- 
cation was  made  to  the  English  Parliament  to  repeal  the  duty  on 
imported  wool,  I  believe  scarcely  two  months  ago;  those  who  support 
the  application,  pressing  urgently  the  necessity  of  an  unrestricted 
use  of  the  cheap,  imported  raw  material,  with  a  view  to  supply,  with 
coarse  cloths,  the  markets  of  warm  climates,  such  as  those  of  Egypt 
and  Turkey,  and  especially  a  vast  new  created  demand  in  the  South 
American  states. 

As  to  the  manufactures  of  cotton,  it  is  agreed,  I  believe,  that  they 
are  generally  successful.  It  is  understood  that  the  present  existing 
duty  operates  pretty  much  as  a  prohibition  over  those  descriptions  of 
fabrics  to  which  it  applies.  The  proposed  alteration  would  probably 
enable  the  American  manufacturer  to  commence  competition  with 
higher  priced  fabrics;  and  so  would,  perhaps,  an  augmentation  less 
than  is  here  proposed.  I  consider  the  cotton  manufactures  not  only 
to  have  reached,  but  to  have  passed,  the  point  of  competition.     I  re- 


295 

gard  their  success  as  certain,  and  their  growth  as  rapid  as  the  most 
impatient  could  well  expect.  If,  however,  a  provision  of  the  nature 
of  that  recommended  here,  were  thought  necessary  to  commence  new 
operations  in  the  same  line  of  manufacture,  I  should  cheerfully  agree 
to  it,  if  it  were  not  at  the  cost  of  sacrificing  other  great  interests  of 
the  country.  I  need  hardly  say,  that  whatever  promotes  the  cotton 
and  woollen  manufactures,  promotes  most  important  interests  of  my 
constituents.  They  have  a  great  stake  in  the  success  of  those  estab- 
lishments, and  as  far  as  those  manufactures  are  concerned,  would  be 
as  much  benefited  by  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  as  any  part  of  the 
community.  It  is  obvious  too,  I  should  think,  that,  for  some  consid- 
erable time,  manufactures  of  this  sort,  to  whatever  magnitude  they 
may  rise,  will  be  principally  established  in  those  parts  of  the  country 
where  population  is  most  dense,  capital  most  abundant,  and  where 
the  most  successful  beginnings  have  been  already  made. 

But  if  these  be  thought  to  be  advantages,  they  are  greatly  counter- 
balanced by  other  advantages  enjoyed  by  other  portions  of  the  coun- 
try. I  cannot  but  regard  the  situation  of  the  West,  as  highly  favor- 
able to  human  happiness.  It  offers,  in  the  abundance  of  its  new  and 
fertile  lands,  such  assurances  of  permanent  property  and  respecta- 
bility to  the  industrious,  it  enables  them  to  lay  such  sure  foundations 
for  a  competent  provision  for  their  families,  it  makes  such  a  nation 
of  freeholders,  that  it  need  not  envy  the  happiest  and  most  prosperous 
of  the  manufacturing  communities.  We  may  talk  as  we  will  of 
well  fed  and  well  clothed  daylaborers  or  journeymen;  they  are  not, 
after  all,  to  be  compared,  either  for  happiness,  or  respectability,  with 
him  who  sleeps  under  his  own  roof,  and  cultivates  his  own  feesimple 
inheritance. 

Writh  respect  to  the  proposed  duty  on  Glass,  I  would  observe,  that, 
upon  the  best  means  of  judging  which  I  possess,  I  am  of  opinion, 
that  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  is  right,  in  stating,  that  there 
is,  in  effect,  a  bounty  upon  the  exportation  of  the  British  article.  I 
think  it  entirely  proper,  therefore,  to  raise  our  own  duty  by  such  an 
amount  as  shall  be  equivalent  to  that  bounty. 

And  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  before  proceeding  to  those  parts  of  the 
Bill  to  which  I  most  strenuously  object,  I  will  be  so  presumptuous, 
as  to  take  up  a  challenge  which  Mr.  Speaker  has  thrown  down.  He 
has  asked  us,  in  a  tone  of  interrogatory  indicative  of  the  feeling  of 
anticipated  triumph,  to  mention  any  country  in  which  manufactures 
have  flourished,  without  the  aid  of  prohibitory  laws.  He  has  de- 
manded, if  it  be  not  policy,  protection,  ay,  and  prohibition,  that 
have  carried  other  states  to  the  height  of  their  prosperity,  and  wheth- 
er any  one  has  succeeded  with  such  tame  and  inert  legislation  as 
ours.      Sir,  I  am  ready  to  answer  this  inquiry. 

There  is  a  country,  not  undistinguished  among  the  nations,  in 
which  the  progress  of  manufactures  has  been  far  more  rapid  than  in 
any  other,  and  yet  unaided  by  prohibitions  or  unnatural  restrictions. 
That  country,  the  happiest  which  the  sun  shines  on,  is  our  own. 

The  woollen  manufactures  of  England  have  existed  from  the  early 
ages  of  the  monarchy.  Provisions,  designed  to  aid  and  foster  them, 
are  in  the  blacklettered  statutes  of  the  Edwards  and  the  Henrys. 
Ours,  on  the  contrary,  are  but  of  yesterday;  and  yet,  with  no  more 


296 

than  the  protection  of  existing  laws,  they  are  already  at  the  point 
of  close  and  promising  competition.  Sir,  nothing  is  more  unphilo- 
sophical  than  to  refer  us,  on  these  subjects,  to  the  policy  adopted  by 
other  nations  in  a  very  different  state  of  society,  or  to  infer  that  what 
was  judged  expedient  by  them,  in  their  early  history,  must  also  be 
expedient  for  us,  in  this  early  part  of  our  own.  This  would  be  reck- 
oning our  age  chronologically,  and  estimating  our  advance  by  our 
number  of  years;  when,  in  truth,  we  should  regard  only  the  state  of 
society,  the  knowledge,  the  skill,  the  capital,  the  enterprise,  which 
belong  to  our  times.  We  have  been  transferred  from  the  stock  of 
Europe,  in  a  comparatively  enlightened  age,  and  our  civilisation  and 
improvement  date  back  as  early  as  her  own.  Her  original  history 
is,  also,  our  original  history;  and  if,  since  the  moment  of  separation, 
she  has  gone  ahead  of  us,  in  some  respects,  it  may  be  said,  without 
violating  truth,  that  we  have  kept  up  in  others,  and,  in  others  again, 
are  ahead  ourselves.  We  are  to  legislate,  then,  with  regard  to  the 
present  actual  state  of  society;  and  our  own  experience  shows  us 
that,  commencing  manufactures  at  the  present  highly  enlightened 
and  emulous  moment,  we  need  not  imitate  the  clumsy  helps,  with 
which,  in  less  auspicious  times,  governments  have  sought  to  enable 
the  ingenuity  and  industry  of  their  people  to  hobble  along. 

The  English  cotton  manufactures  began  about  the  commencement 
of  the  last  reign.  Ours  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  commenced,  with 
any  earnestness,  until  the  application  of  the  power  loom,  in  1816, 
not  more  than  eight  years  ago.  Now,  sir,  I  hardly  need  again  speak 
of  its  progress,  its  present  extent,  or  its  assurance  of  future  enlarge- 
ment. In  some  sorts  of  fabrics  we  are  already  exporters,  and  the 
products  of  our  manufactories  are,  at  this  moment,  in  the  South  Ame- 
rican markets.  We  see,  then,  what  can  be  done  without  prohibition 
or  extraordinary  protection,  because  we  see  what  has  been  done;  and 
I  venture  to  predict  that,  in  a  few  years,  it  will  be  thought  wonderful 
that  these  branches  of  manufactures,  at  least,  should  have  been 
thought  to  require  additional  aid  from  government. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  best  apology  for  laws  of  prohibition  and  laws 
of  monopoly,  will  be  found  in  that  state  of  society,  not  only  unen- 
lightened, but  sluggish,  in  which  they  are  most  generally  established. 
Private  industry,  in  those  days,  required  strong  provocatives,  which 
governments  were  seeking  to  administer  by  these  means.  Something 
was  wanted  to  actuate  and  stimulate  men,  and  the  prospects  of  such 
profits  as  would,  in  our  times,  excite  unbounded  competition,  would 
hardly  move  the  sloth  of  former  ages.  In  some  instances,  no  doubt, 
these  laws  produced  an  effect,  which,  in  that  period,  would  not  have 
taken  place  without  them.  But  our  age  is  wholly  of  a  different 
character,  and  its  legislation  takes  another  turn.  Society  is  full  of 
excitement;  competition  comes  in  place  of  monopoly;  and  intelligence 
and  industry  ask  only  for  fair  play  and  an  open  field.  Profits,  in- 
deed, in  such  a  state  of  things,  will  be  small,  but  they  will  be  exten- 
sively diffused;  prices  will  be  low,  and  the  great  body  of  the  people 
prosperous  and  happy.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that,  from  the 
operation  of  these  causes,  commercial  wealth,  while  it  is  increased 
beyond  calculation  in  its  general  aggregate,  is,  at  the  same  time, 
broken  and  diminished  in  its  subdivisions.     Commercial  prosperity 


297 

should  be  judged  of  therefore  rather  from  the  extent  of  trade,  than 
from  the  magnitude  of  its  apparent  profits.  It  has  been  remarked, 
that  Spain,  certainly  one  of  the  poorest  nations,  made  very  great 
profits  on  the  amount  of  her  trade;  but  with  little  other  benefit  than 
the  enriching  of  a  few  individuals  and  companies.  Profits  to  the 
English  merchants  engaged  in  the  Levant  and  Turkey  trade,  were 
formerly  very  great,  and  there  were  richer  merchants  in  England 
some  centuries  ago,  considering  the  comparative  value  of  money, 
than  at  the  present  highly  commercial  period.  When  the  diminution 
of  profits  arises  from  the  extent  of  competition,  it  indicates  rather  a 
salutary  than  an  injurious  change.* 

The  true  course  then,  sir,  for  us  to  pursue,  is,  in  my  opinion,  to 
consider  what  our  situation  is;  what  our  means  are;  and  how  they 
can  be  best  applied.  What  amount  of  population  have  we,  in  com- 
parison with  our  extent  of  soil,  what  amount  of  capital,  and  labor  at 
what  price?  As  to  skill,  knowledge,  and  enterprise,  we  may  safely 
take  it  for  granted,  that,  in  these  particulars,  we  are  on  an  equality 
with  others.  Keeping  these  considerations  in  view,  allow  me  to 
examine  two  or  three  of  those  provisions  of  the  bill  to  which  I  feel 
the  strongest  objections. 

To  begin  with  the  article  of  iron.  Our  whole  annual  consump- 
tion of  this  article  is  supposed  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee, 
to  be  48 ,000  or  50,000  tons.  Let  us  suppose  the  latter.  The  amount 
of  our  own  manufacture  he  estimates,  I  think,  at  17,000  tons.  The 
present  duty  on  the  imported  article,  is  $15  per  ton,  and  as  this  duty 
causes  of  course  an  equivalent  augmentation  of  the  price  of  the  home 
manufacture,  the  whole  increase  of  price  is  equal  to  $750,000  annu- 
ally. This  sum  we  pay  on  a  raw  material,  and  on  an  absolute 
necessary  of  life.  The  Bill  proposes  to  raise  the  duty  from  $15  to 
$22  50  per  ton,  which  would  be  equal  to  $1 ,125,000  on  the  whole  an- 
nual consumption.  So  that,  suppose  the  point  of  prohibition  which  is 
aimed  at  by  some  gentlemen  to  be  attained,  the  consumers  of  the  ar- 
ticle would  pay  this  last  mentioned  sum  every  year  to  the  producers 
of  it,  over  and  above  the  price  at  which  tjiey  could  supply  themselves 
with  the  same  article  from  other  sources.  There  would  be  no  miti- 
gation of  this  burden,  except  from  the  prospect,  whatever  that  might 
be,  that  iron  would  fall  in  value,  by  domestic  competition,  after  the 
importation  should  be  prohibited.  It  will  be  easy,  I  think,  to  show, 
that  it  cannot  fall;  and  supposing  for  the  present  that  it  shall  not, 
the  result  will  be,  that  we  shall  pay  annually  a  sum  of  $1,125,000, 
constantly  augmented,  too,  by  increased  consumption  of  the  article,  to 
support  a  business  that  cannot  support  itself.  It  is  of  no  consequence 
to  the  argument,  that  this  sum  is  expended  at  home;  so  it  would  be, 
if  we  taxed  the  people  to  support  any  other  useless  and  expensive 
establishment,  to  build  another  Capitol  for  example,  or  incur  an  un- 

*"The  present  equable  diffusion  of  moderate  wealth  cannot  be  better  illustrated,  than  by 
remarking  that  in  this  age  many  palaces  and  superb  mansions  have  been  pulled  down,  or 
converted  to  other  purposes,  while  none  have  been  erected  on  a  like  scale.  The  numberless 
baronial  castles  and  mansions,  in  all  parts  of  England,  now  in  ruins,  may  all  be  adduced  as 
examples  of  the  decrease  of  inordinate  wealth.  On  the  other  hand,  the  multiplication  of 
commodious  dwellings,  for  the  upper  and  middle  classes  of  society,  and  the  increased  com- 
forts of  all  ranks,  exhibit  a  picture  of  individual  happiness,  unknown  in  any  other  age." — 
Sir  G.  Blanks  Letter  to  Lord  Spencer,  in  1800. 

38 


298 

necessary  expense  of  any  sort.  The  question  still  is,  are  the  mon- 
ey, time,  and  labor,  well  laid  out  in  these  cases?  The  present  price 
of  iron  at  Stockholm,  I  am  assured  by  importers,  is  $  53  per  ton  on 
board,  $  48  in  the  yard  before  loading,  and  probably  not  far  from  $  40 
at  the  mines.  Freight,  insurance,  &c.  may  be  fairly  estimated  at 
$15,  to  which  add  our  present  duty  of  $15  more,  and  these  two  last 
sums,  together  with  the  cost  on  board  at  Stockholm,  give  $83  as  the 
cost  of  Swedes  iron  in  our  market.  In  fact  it  is  said  to  have  been 
sold  last  year  at  $  8 1  50  to  $  82  per  ton.  We  perceive,  by  this  state- 
ment, that  the  cost  of  the  iron  is  doubled  in  reaching  us  from  the  mine 
in  which  it  is  produced.  In  other  words,  our  present  duty  with  the 
expense  of  transportation,  gives  an  advantage  to  the  American,  over 
the  foreign  manufacturer,  of  one  hundred  per  cent.  Why  then  can- 
not the  iron  be  manufactured  at  home  ?  Our  ore  is  said  to  be  as  good, 
and  some  of  it  better.  It  is  under  our  feet,  and  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  tells  us,  that  it  might  be  wrought  by  persons  who  otherwise 
will  not  be  employed.  Why  then  is  it  not  wrought?  Nothing  could 
be  more  sure  of  constant  sale.  It  is  not  an  article  of  changeable 
fashion,  but  of  absolute,  permanent  necessity,  and  such,  therefore, 
as  would  always  meet  a  steady  demand.  Sir,  I  think  it  would  be 
well  for  the  chairman  of  the  committee  to  revise  his  premises,  for  I 
am  persuaded  that  there  is  an  ingredient  properly  belonging  to  the 
calculation  which  he  has  mistated  or  omitted.  Swedes  iron  in  Eng- 
land pays  a  duty,  I  think,  of  about  $  27  per  ton;  yet  it  is  imported  in 
considerable  quantities,  notwithstanding  the  vast  capital,  the  excellent 
coal,  and,  more  important  than  all  perhaps,  the  highly  improved 
state  of  inland  navigation  in  England;  although  I  am  aware  that  the 
English  use  of  Swedes  iron  may  be  thought  to  be  owing  in  some  de- 
gree to  its  superior  quality. 

Sir,  the  true  explanation  of  this,  appears  to  me  to  lie  in  the  differ- 
ent prices  of  labor;  and  here  I  apprehend  is  the  grand  mistake  in  the 
argument  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee.  He  says  it  would  cost 
the  nation,  as  a  nation,  nothing,  to  make  our  ore  into  iron.  Now,  I 
think  it  would  cost  us  precisely  that  which  we  can  worst  afford;  that 
is,  great  labor.  Although  bar  iron  is  very  properly  considered  a  raw 
material  in  respect  to  its  various  future  uses;  yet,  as  bar  iron,  the 
principal  ingredient  in  its  cost  is  labor.  Of  manual  labor,  no  nation 
has  more  than  a  certain  quantity,  nor  can  it  be  increased  at  will.  As 
to  some  operations,  indeed,  its  place  may  be  supplied  by  machinery; 
but  there  are  other  services  which  machinery  cannot  perform  for  it, 
and  which  it  must  perform  for  itself.  A  most  important  question  for 
every  nation,  as  well  as  for  every  individual  to  propose  to  itself,  is, 
how  it  can  best  apply  that  quantity  of  labor  which  it  is  able  to  per- 
form? Labor  is  the  great  producer  of  wealth;  it  moves  all  other 
causes.  If  it  call  machinery  to  its  aid,  it  is  still  employed  not  only 
in  using  the  machinery,  but  in  making  it.  Now,  with  respect  to  the 
quantity  of  labor,  as  we  all  know,  different  nations  are  differently 
circumstanced.  Some  need,  more  than  anything,  work  for  hands, 
others  require  hands  for  work;  and  if  we  ourselves  are  not  absolute- 
ly in  the  latter  class,  we  are  still,  most  fortunately,  very  near  it.  I 
cannot  find  that  we  have  those  idle  hands,  of  which  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  speaks.     The  price  of  labor  is  a  conclusive  and  un- 


299 

answerable  refutation  of  that  idea;  it  is  known  to  be  higher  with  us 
than  in  any  other  civilized  state,  and  this  is  the  greatest  of  all  proofs 
of  general  happiness.  Labor  in  this  country  is  independent  and 
proud.  It  has  not  to  ask  the  patronage  of  capital,  but  capital  solic- 
its the  aid  of  labor.  This  is  the  general  truth,  in  regard  to  the  con- 
dition of  our  whole  population,  although  in  the  large  cities  there  are, 
doubtless,  many  exceptions.  The  mere  capacity  to  labor  in  com- 
mon agricultural  employments,  gives  to  our  young  men  the  assurance 
of  independence.  We  have  been  asked,  sir,  by  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  in  a  tone  of  some  pathos,  whether  we  will  allow  to  the 
serfs  of  Russia  and  Sweden  the  benefit  of  making  iron  for  us?  Let 
me  inform  the  gentleman,  sir,  that  those  same  serfs  do  not  earn  more 
than  seven  cents  a  day,  and  that  they  work  in  these  mines,  for  that 
compensation,  because  they  are  serfs.  And  let  me  ask  the  gentle- 
man further,  ivhether  we  have  any  labor  in  this  country  that  cannot  be 
better  employed  than  in  a  business  which  does  not  yield  the  laborer  more 
than  seven  cents  a  day?  This,  it  appears  to  me,  is  the  true  question 
for  our  consideration.  There  is  no  reason  for  saying  that  we  will 
work  iron  because  we  have  mountains  that  contain  the  ore.  We 
might  for  the  same  reason  dig  among  our  rocks  for  the  scattered 
grains  of  gold  and  silver  which  might  be  found  there.  The  true  in- 
quii*y  is  y  can  we  produce  the  article  in  a  useful  state  at  the  same  cost,  or 
nearly  at  the  same  cost,  or  at  any  reasonable  approximation  towards  the 
same  cost,  at  ivhich  we  can  import  it. 

Some  general  estimates  of  the  price  and  profits  of  labor,  in  those 
countries  from  which  we  import  our  iron,  might  be  formed  by  com- 
paring the  reputed  products  of  different  mines,  and  their  prices,  with 
the  number  of  hands  employed.  The  mines  of  Danemora  are  said 
to  yield  about  4000  tons,  and  to  employ  in  the  mines  twelve  hun- 
dred workmen.  Suppose  this  to  be  worth  50  dollars  per  ton;  any 
one  will  find  by  computation  that  the  whole  product  would  not  pay 
in  this  country,  for  one  quarter  part  of  the  necessary  labor.  The 
whole  export  of  Sweden  was  estimated,  a  few  years  ago,  at  400,000 
ship-pounds,  or  about  54,000  tons.  Comparing  this  product  with 
the  number  of  workmen  usually  supposed  to  be  employed  in  the 
mines  which  produce  iron  for  exportation,  the  result  will  not  greatly 
differ  from  the  foregoing.  These  estimates  are  general,  and  might 
not  conduct  us  to  a  precise  result;  but  we  know,  from  intelligent 
travellers,  and  eye-witnesses,  that  the  price  of  labor  in  the  Swedish 
mines,  does  not  exceed  seven  cents  a  day.* 

The  true  reason,  sir,  why  it  is  not  our  policy  to  compel  our  citi- 
zens to  manufacture  our  own  iron,  is,  that  they  are  far  better  em- 

*  The  price  of  labor  in  Russia  may  be  pretty  well  collected  from  Tooke's  "  View  of  the 
Russian  Empire."  "  The  workmen  in  the  mines  and  the  founderies  are,  indeed,  all  called 
master-pen  pie;  but  they  distinguish  themselves  into  masters,  undermasters,  apprentices, 
delvers,  servants,  carriers,  washers,  and  separators.  In  proportion  to  their  ability  their 
wages  are  regulated,  which  proceed  from  15  to  upwards  of  30  roubles  per  annum.  The 
provisions  which  they  receive  from  the  magazines  are  deducted  from  this  pay."  The  value 
of  the  rouble  at  that  time  (1799)  wa^  about  24  pence  sterling,  or  45  cents  of  our  money. 

"  By  the  edict  of  1799,"  it  is  added,  "  a  laborer  with  a  horse  shall  receive,  daily,  in 
summer,  20,  and  in  winter  12  copecks;  a  laborer,  without  a  horse,  in  summer,  10,  in 
winter,  8,  copecks." 

A  copeck  is  the  hundredth  part  of  a  rouble,  or  about  half  a  cent  of  our  money.  The 
price  of  labor  may  have  risen,  in  some  degree,  since  that  period,  but  probably  not  much. 


300 

ployed.  It  is  an  unproductive  business,  and  they  are  not  poor 
enough  to  be  obliged  to  follow  it.  If  we  had  more  of  poverty, 
more  of  misery,  and  something  of  servitude,  if  we  had  an  ignorant, 
idle,  starving  population,  we  might  set  up  for  iron  makers  against 
the  world. 

The  committee  will  take  notice,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  under  our 
present  duty,  together  with  the  expense  of  transportation,  our  man- 
ufacturers are  able  to  supply  their  own  immediate  neighbourhood; 
and  this  proves  the  magnitude  of  that  substantial  encouragement 
which  these  two  causes  concur  to  give.  There  is  little  or  no  for- 
eign iron,  I  presume,  used  in  the  county  of  Lancaster.  This  is 
owing  to  the  heavy  expense  of  land  carriage;  and,  as  we  recede 
farther  from  the  coast,  the  manufacturers  are  still  more  completely 
secured,  as  to  their  own  immediate  market,  against  the  competition 
of  the  imported  article.  But  what  they  ask  is  to  be  allowed  to  sup- 
ply the  seacoast,  at  such  a  price  as  shall  be  formed  by  adding  to 
the  cost  at  the  mines  the  expense  of  land  carriage  to  the  sea;  and 
this  appears  to  me  most  unreasonable.  The  effect  of  it  would  be 
to  compel  the  consumer  to  pay  the  cost  of  two  land  transporta- 
tions; for,  in  the  first  place,  the  price  of  iron,  at  the  inland  furnaces, 
will  always  be  found  to  be  at,  or  not  much  below,  the  price  of  the 
imported  article  in  the  seaport,  and  the  cost  of  transportation  to  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  furnace;  and  to  enable  the  home  product  to 
hold  a  competition  with  the  imported  in  the  seaport,  the  cost  of 
another  transportation  downward,  from  the  furnace  to  the  coast, 
must  be  added.  Until  our  means  of  inland  commerce  be  improved, 
and  the  charges  of  transportation  by  that  means  lessened,  it  appears 
to  me  wholly  impracticable,  with  such  duties  as  any  one  would  think 
of  proposing,  to  meet  the  wishes  of  the  manufacturers  of  this  arti- 
cle. Suppose  we  were  to  add  the  duty  proposed  by  this  bill,  although 
it  would  benefit  the  capital  invested  in  works  near  the  sea,  and  the 
navigable  rivers,  yet  the  benefit  would  not  extend  far  in  the  interior. 
Where,  then,  are  we  to  stop,  or  what  limit  is  proposed  to  us? 

The  freight  of  iron  has  been  afforded  from  Sweden  to  the  United 
States  as  low  as  eight  dollars  per  ton.  This  is  not  more  than  the 
price  of  fifty  miles  land  carriage.  Stockholm,  therefore,  for  the 
purpose  of  this  argument,  may  be  considered  as  within  fifty  miles 
of  Philadelphia.  Now,  it  is  at  once  a  just  and  a  strong  view  of 
this  case,  to  consider,  that  there  are,  within  fifty  miles  of  our  mar- 
ket, vast  multitudes  of  persons  who  are  willing  to  labor  in  the  pro- 
duction of  this  article  for  us,  at  the  rate  of  seven  cents  per  day, 
while  we  have  no  labor  which  will  not  command,  upon  the  average, 
at  least  five  or  six  times  that  amount.  The  question  is,  then,  shall 
we  buy  this  article  of  these  manufacturers,  and  suffer  our  own  labor 
to  earn  its  greater  reward,  or  shall  we  employ  our  own  labor  in  a 
similar  manufacture,  and  make  up  to  it,  by  a  tax  on  consumers,  the 
loss  which  it  must  necessarily  sustain. 

I  proceed,  sir,  to  the  article  of  hemp.  Of  this  we  imported  last 
year,  in  round  numbers,  6,000  tons,  paying  a  duty  of  J  30  a  ton,  or 
§180,000  on  the  whole  amount;  and  this  article,  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, is  consumed  almost  entirely  in  the  uses  of  navigation.  The 
whole  burden  may  be  said  to  fall  on  one  interest      It  is  said  we  can 


301 

produce  this  article  if  we  will  raise  the  duties.  But  why  is  it  not 
produced  now;  or  why,  at  least,  have  we  not  seen  some  specimens? 
for  the  present  is  a  very  high  duty,  when  expenses  of  importation  are 
added.  Hemp  was  purchased  at  St.  Petersburg,  last  year,  at  $101  67 
per  ton.  Charges  attending  shipment,  &c.  $14  25.  Freight  may 
be  stated  at  $30  per  ton,  and  our  existing  duty  is  $30  more.  These 
three  last  sums,  being  the  charges  of  transportation,  amount  to  a 
protection  of  near  75  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  home  manufacturer, 
if  there  were  any  such.  And  we  ought  to  consider,  also,  that  the 
price  of  hemp  at  St.  Petersburg  is  increased  by  all  the  expense  of 
transportation  from  the  place  of  growth  to  that  port;  so  that  proba- 
bly the  whole  cost  of  transportation,  from  the  place  of  growth  to 
our  market,  including  our  duty,  is  equal  to  the  first  cost  of  the  ar- 
ticle; or,  in  other  words,  is  a  protection  in  favor  of  our  own  product 
of  100  per  cent. 

And  since  it  is  stated  that  we  have  great  quantities  of  fine  land 
for  the  production  of  hemp,  of  which  I  have  no  doubt,  the  question 
recurs,  why  is  it  not  produced?  I  speak  of  the  water  rotted  hemp,  for 
it  is  admitted  that  that  which  is  dew  rotted  is  not  sufficiently  good 
for  the  requisite  purposes.  I  cannot  say  whether  the  cause  be  in 
climate,  in  the  process  of  rotting,  or  what  else,  but  the  fact  is  certain, 
that  there  is  no  American  water  rotted  hemp  in  the  market.  We  are 
acting,  therefore,  upon  a  hypothesis.  Is  it  not  reasonable  that  those 
who  say  that  they  can  produce  the  article,  shall  at  least  prove  the 
truth  of  that  allegation  before  new  taxes  are  laid  on  those  who  use 
the  foreign  commodity?  Suppose  this  bill  passes:  the  price  of  hemp 
is  immediately  raised  $  14  80  per  ton,  and  this  burden  falls  immedi- 
ately on  the  ship  builder;  and  no  part  of  it,  for  the  present,  will  go 
for  the  benefit  of  the  American  grower,  because  he  has  none  of  the 
article  that  can  be  used,  nor  is  it  expected  that  much  of  it  will  be 
produced  for  a  considerable  time.  Still  the  tax  takes  effect  upon 
the  imported  article;  and  the  ship  owners,  to  enable  the  Kentucky 
farmer  to  receive  an  additional  $  14  on  his  ton  of  hemp,  whenever  he 
may  be  able  to  raise  and  manufacture  it,  pay,  in  the  meantime,  an 
equal  sum  per  ton  into  the  Treasury  on  all  the  imported  hemp  which 
they  are  still  obliged  to  use;  and  this  is  called  "  protection!"  Is  this 
just  or  fair?  A  particular  interest  is  here  burdened,  not  only  for  the 
benefit  of  another  particular  interest,  but  burdened  also  beyond  that, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Treasury.  It  is  said  to  be  important  for  the 
country  that  this  article  should  be  raised  in  it;  then,  let  the  country 
bear  the  expense,  and  pay  the  bounty.  If  it  be  for  the  good  of  the 
whole,  let  the  sacrifice  be  made  by  the  whole,  and  not  by  a  part.  If 
it  be  thought  useful  and  necessary,  from  political  considerations,  to 
encourage  the  growth  and  manufacture  of  hemp,  government  has 
abundant  means  of  doing  it.  It  might  give  a  direct  bounty,  and  such 
a  measure  would,  at  least,  distribute  the  burden  equally;  or,  as  gov- 
ernment itself  is  a  great  consumer  of  this  article,  it  might  stipulate 
to  confine  its  own  purchases  to  the  home  product,  so  soon  as  it  should 
be  shown  to  be  of  the  proper  quality.  I  see  no  objection  to  this  pro- 
ceeding, if  it  be  thought  to  be  an  object  to  encourage  the  production. 
It  might  easily,  and  perhaps  properly,  be  provided,  by  law,  that  the 
Navy  should  be  supplied  with  American  hemp,  the   quality  being 

BB 


302 

good,  at  any  price  not  exceeding,  by  more  than  a  given  amount,  the 
current  price  of  foreign  hemp  in  our  market.  Everything  conspires 
to  render  some  such  course  preferable  to  the  one  now  proposed. 
The  encouragement  in  that  way  would  be  ample,  and,  if  the  experi- 
ment should  succeed,  the  whole  object  would  be  gained;  and  if  it 
should  fail,  no  considerable  loss  or  evil  would  be  felt  by  any  one. 

I  stated,  some  days  ago,  and  I  wish  to  renew  the  statement,  what 
was  the  amount  of  the  proposed  augmentation  of  the  duties  on  iron 
and  hemp,  in  the  cost  of  a  vessel.  Take  the  case  of  a  common  ship, 
of  300  tons,  not  coppered,  nor  copper  fastened.  It  would  stand  thus, 
by  the  present  duties: 

14£  Tons  of  iron,  for  hull,  rigging,  and  anchors,  at  $  15  per 

ton -  $  217  50 

10  Tons  of  hemp,  at  $30    -  -  -  -  300  00 

40  Bolts  Russia  duck,  at  $  2  -  -  -  80  00 

20  Bolts  Ravens  duck,  at  $  1  25    -  -  -  25  00 

On  articles  of  ship  chandlery,  cabin  furniture,  hardware,  &c.        40  00 

,  $  662  50 

The  bill  proposes  to  add: 
$  7  40  per  ton  on  iron,  which  will  be     -  -  -     $  107  30 

i  14  80  per  ton  on  hemp,  equal  to  -  -         148  00 

And  on  duck,  by  the  late  amendment  of  the  bill,  say  25 

per  cent  -  -  -  -  -  25  00 

$  280  30 

But,  to  the  duties  on  iron  and  hemp,  should  be  added  those  paid 
on  copper,  whenever  that  article  is  used.  By  the  statement  which 
I  furnished  the  other  day,  it  appeared  that  the  duties  received  by 
government,  on  articles  used  in  the  construction  of  a  vessel  of  359 
tons,  with  copper  fastenings,  amounted  to  $  1056.  With  the  augmen- 
tations of  this  Bill,  they  would  be  equal  to  $  1400.  Now,  I  cannot 
but  flatter  myself,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  before  the  committee  will 
consent  to  this  new  burden  upon  the  shipping  interest,  it  will  very 
deliberately  weigh  the  probable  consequences.  I  would  again  urg- 
ently solicit  its  attention  to  the  condition  of  that  interest.  We  are 
told  that  Government  has  protected  it,  by  discriminating  duties,  and 
by  an  exclusive  right  to  the  coasting  trade.  But  it  would  retain  the 
coasting  trade,  by  its  own  natural  efforts,  in  like  manner,  and  with 
more  certainty,  than  it  now  retains  any  portion  of  foreign  trade. 
The  discriminating  duties  are  now  abolished,  and  while  they  existed, 
they  were  nothing  more  than  countervailing  measures;  not  so  much 
designed  to  give  our  navigation  an  advantage  over  that  of  other  na- 
tions, as  to  put  it  upon  an  equality;  and  we  have,  accordingly,  abol- 
ished ours,  when  they  have  been  willing  to  abolish  theirs.  Look  to 
the  rate  of  freights.  Were  they  ever  lower,  or  even  so  low?  I  ask 
gentlemen  who  know,  whether  the  harbor  of  Charleston,  and  the 
river  of  Savannah,  be  not  crowded  with  ships  seeking  employment, 
and  finding  none  ?     I  would  ask  the  gentlemen  from  New  Orleans, 


303 

if  their  magnificent  Mississippi  does  not  exhibit,  for  furlongs,  a  forest 
of  masts?  The  condition,  sir,  of  the  shipping  interest  is  not  that  of 
those  who  are  insisting  on  high  profits,  or  struggling  for  monopoly; 
but  it  is  the  condition  of  men  content  with  the  smallest  earnings,  and 
anxious  for  their  bread.  The  freight  of  cotton  has  formerly  been 
three  pence  sterling,  from  Charleston  to  Liverpool,  in  time  of  peace. 
It  is  now  I  know  not  what,  or  how  many,  fractions  of  a  penny;  I 
think,  however,  it  is  stated  at  five-eighths.  The  producers,  then,  of 
this  great  staple,  are  able,  by  means  of  this  navigation,  to  send  it,  for 
a  cent  a  pound,  from  their  own  doors  to  the  best  market  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  only  remind  the  committee  that,  while 
we  are  proposing  to  add  new  burdens  to  the  shipping  interest,  a  very 
different  line  of  policy  is  followed  by  our  great  commercial  and  mari- 
time rival.  It  seems  to  be  announced  as  the  sentiment  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  England,  and  undoubtedly  it  is  its  real  sentiment,  that  the 
first  of  all  manufactures  is  the  manufacture  of  ships.  A  constant  and 
wakeful  attention  is  paid  to  this  interest,  and  very  important  regula- 
tions, favorable  to  it,  have  been  adopted  within  the  last  year,  some 
of  which  I  will  beg  leave  to  refer  to,  with  the  hope  of  exciting  the 
notice,  not  only  of  the  committee,  but  of  all  others  who  may  feel,  as 
I  do,  a  deep  interest  in  this  subject.  In  the  first  place,  a  general 
amendment  has  taken  place  in  the  register  acts,  introducing  many 
new  provisions,  and,  among  others,  the  following: 

A  direct  mortgage  of  the  interest  of  a  ship  is  allowed,  without  sub- 
jecting the  mortgagee  to'  the  responsibility  of  an  owner. 

The  proportion  of  interest  held  by  each  owner  is  exhibited  in  the 
register,  thereby  facilitating  both  sales  and  mortgages,  and  giving  a 
new  value  to  shipping  among  the  moneyed  classes. 

Shares,  in  the  ships  of  copartnerships,  may  be  registered  as  joint 
property,  and  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  other  partnership  effects. 

Ships  may  be  registered  in  the  name  of  trustees,  for  the  benefit  of 
joint  stock  companies;  and  many  other  regulations  are  adopted  with 
the  same  general  view  of  rendering  the  mode  of  holding  the  property 
as  convenient  and  as  favorable  as  possible. 

By  another  act,  British  registered  vessels,  of  every  description,  are 
allowed  to  enter  into  the  general  and  the  coasting  trade  in  the  India 
seas,  and  may  now  trade  to  and  from  India,  with  any  part  of  the 
world,  except  China. 

By  a  third,  all  limitations  and  restrictions,  as  to  latitude  and  longi- 
tude, are  removed  from  ships  engaged  in  the  Southern  whale  fishery. 
These  regulations,  I  presume,  have  not  been  made  without  first  ob- 
taining the  consent  of  the  East  India  Company;  so  true  is  it  found, 
that  real  encouragement  of  enterprise  oflener  consists,  in  our  days, 
in  restraining  or  buying  off  monopolies  and  prohibitions,  than  in  im- 
posing or  extending  them. 

The  trade  with  Ireland  is  turned  into  a  free  coasting  trade;  light 
duties  have  been  reduced,  and  various  other  beneficial  arrangements 
made,  and  still  others  proposed.  I  might  add,  that,  in  favor  of  gen- 
eral commerce,  and  as  showing  their  confidence  in  the  principles  of 
liberal  intercourse,  the  British  government  has  perfected  the  ware- 
house system,  and  authorised  a  reciprocity  of  duties  with  foreign 
states,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Privy  Council. 


304 

This,  sir,  is  the  attention  which  our  great  rival  is  paying  to  these 
important  subjects,  and  we  may  assure  ourselves  that,  if  we  do  not 
keep  alive  a  proper  sense  of  our  own  interests,  she  will  not  only  beat 
us,  but  will  deserve  to  beat  us. 

Sir,  I  will  detain  you  no  longer.  There  are  some  parts  of  this  Bill 
which  I  highly  approve;  there  are  others  in  which  I  should  acquiesce; 
but  those  to  which  I  have  now  stated  my  objections  appear  to  me  so 
destitute  of  all  justice,  so  burdensome  and  so  dangerous  to  that  in- 
terest which  has  steadily  enriched,  gallantly  defended,  and  proudly 
distinguished  us,  that  nothing  can  prevail  upon  me  to  give  it  my 
support 


NOTE. 

Since  the  delivery  of  this  Speech,  an  arrival  has  brought  London  papers  containing  the 
Speech  of  the  English  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  (Mr.  Robinson,)  on  the  23d  February 
last,  in  submitting  to  Parliament  the  Annual  Financial  Statement.  The  author  hopes  he 
may  be  pardoned  for  adding  the  following  extract  from  that  Speech,  as  showing,  pretty  clear- 
ly, whether  he  was  right,  in  his  representation  of  the  prevailing  sentiment,  in  the  English 
Government,  on  the  general  subject  of  prohibitory  laws,  and  on  the  silk  manufacture,  and 
the  wool  tax,  particularly. 

"  In  the  earlier  part  of  what  I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  addressing  to  the  Committee,  I 
alluded  to  that  portion  of  this  question  which  refers  to  a  more  free  and  liberal  system  of 
policy  in  matters  of  trade.  To  this  division  of  the  subject,  I  will  now  particularly  invite 
attention.  There  are,  as  of  course  Honorable  Gentlemen  are  aware,  various  branches  of 
our  commerce,  loaded  on  the  one  hand  with  high  duties  upon  the  importation,  and  which, 
in  an  opposite  direction,  are  encumbered  with  restrictions  and  prohibitions  of  different 
kinds.  Amongst  these  is  the  article  of  wool  (Hear.)  As  the  law  now  stands,  (which,  by 
the  way,  as  far  as  duty  is  concerned,  is  of  very  recent  establishment,)  the  duty  is  6d  per  lb.; 
it  was  originally  one  penny.  This  duty  was  imposed  in  the  year  1819,  not  at  all,  as  has 
been  often  in  my  opinion,  and  indeed  in  the  opinion  also  of  my  noble  friend  at  the  head  of 
the  Treasury,  very  iuaccurately  stated,  for  the  purpose  of  protection,  but  merely  with  a  view 
to  the  increase  of  the  revenue.  But  the  parties  interested,  and  who  sought  the  abrogation 
of  this  law,  were  always  told  :  '  You  have  no  right  to  object  to  that  duty,  so  long  as  you 
require  that  the  produce  of  the  British  wool-grower  should  be  confined  to  the  consumption 
of  this  country,'  (Hear.)  It  was  never  concealed,  either  in  this  House,  or  from  the  per- 
sons engaged  in  the  trade  ;  we  constantly  said,  '  If  you  will  consent  to  the  removal  of  that 
impolitic  restriction,  as  we  consider  it,  upon  the  export  of  British  wool,  we  will  propose  in 
Parliament  the  repeal  of  the  duty.'  The  discussion  of  this  subject  led  to  a  good  deal  of 
communication,  in  the  last  year,  with  the  manufacturing  interests,  in  different  parts  of  the 
country  :  they  held  meetings,  at  which  various  resolutions  were  adopted  :  as  may  be  supposed, 
it  was  found  in  the  result,  that  there  existed  a  discordance  of  opinion  on  the  question  at 
issue.  Some  were  disposed  to  think  that  the  repeal  of  the  duty  would,  be  less  of  a  benefit 
to  them,  than  the  removal  of  the  restriction  would  be  an  evil ;  they  were  therefore  desirous 
that  the  matter  should  be  left  just  as  it  stands,  and  that  no  alteration  should  be  made ;  they 
were  anxious  indeed  to  get  rid  of  the  duty,  but  not  at  the  expense  of  the  loss  of  the  protec- 
tion they  imagined  the  restriction  afforded  them.  Undoubtedly,  however,  a  majority,  I  may 
say  a  decided  majority,  of  the  interests  concerned  in  the  woollen  trade,  were  of  opinion,  that 
it  would  be  beneficial  to  them  to  accede  to  that  sort  of  compromise,  that  the  duty  should  be 
repealed,  and  a  free  export  of  the  article  permitted.  I  confess,  on  the  best  and  most  delibe- 
rate view  I  have  been  able  to  take  of  the  subject,  I  cannot  see  what  reasonable  objection 
there  can  be  to  adopt  such  a  plan.  (Hear,  hear.)  Certainly,  a  part  of  the  plan  I  shall 
submit  to  Parliament,  will  be,  to  reduce  the  duty  on  foreign  wool,  from  6d.  per  pound,  which 
it  is  at  present,  to  Id.  per  pound,  as  it  was  originally  before  the  bill  of  1819.  I  shall  then 
recommend  that  British  wool  be  allowed  to  be  exported,  on  the  payment  of  a  small  duty  of 
Id.  also,  to  put  them  upon  a  level,  and  to  keep  the  balance  even  between  the  two.  Thus 
shall  we  sweep  away  needless,  and,  as  I  think,  injurious  statutes  of  restriction,  and  not 


305 

merely  those,  but  penalties,  oaths,  an  1  Heaven  knows  what  besides.  (Hear,  hear.)  All 
of  these  are  exceedingly  inconvenient,  an  I,  what  is  more,  they  do  no  possible  good.  Thus, 
the  whole  trade  will  be  put  upon  a  tooting,  which,  I  am  quite  confident,  will  turn  out  to  l)e 
most  beneficial  to  both  parties— the  grower  of  British  wool  and  the  manufacturer  of  the  for- 
eign article.  On  that  matter  I  feel  none  of  the  apprehensions  which  at  times  have  been 
expressed  by  lx>tli  parties.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  consequence  of  the  change  will  he  a 
great  extension  of  our  woollen  trade  to  every  quarter  of  the  world  ;  and  it  is  beyond  my  com- 
prehension to  imagine  how  such  a  state  of  things  can  be  otherwise  than  advantageous  to 
those  who  sell  the  raw  material — (Hear !) — therefore  I  see  nothing  but  good  to  result  from 
the  repeal  of  the  duty,  and  the  removal  of  the  restriction;  and  I  hope  that,  in  endeavouring 
to  accomplish  this  object,  I  shall  be  supported  by  the  House.  (Much  cheering.)  The  loss 
I  anticipate  to  the  revenue  from  such  a  proceeding,  is  350,000/.  per  annum.  The  next  item 
to  which  I  shall  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee,  is  one  which,  I  own,  appears  to  be  of 
paramount  importance  in  this  view  of  the  subject.  I  mean  in  that  view  of  the  subject 
which  relates  to  the  removal  of  restrictions.  I  allude  to  the  item  of  silk.  (Hear.)  This 
trade  is  thus  circumstanced  :  there  is  a  very  high  duty  on  the  raw  material,  and  a  positive 
prohibition  of  the  consumption  of  the  foreign  manufactured  article.  I  will,  with  the  leave 
of  the  Committee,  take  the  latter  first ;  and,  in  the  outset,  I  should  wish  to  ask,  where  is 
the  advantage  of  retaining  die  prohibitory  system.  (Hear,  hear.)  Where  is  the  advantage 
of  retaining  it,  looking  at  it  either  with  reference  to  our  intercourse  with  other  nations,  or 
with  reference  to  our  own  domestic  interests '?  (Hear.)  For  some  years  past  there  has 
certainly  prevailed  in  this  country,  among  its  ablest  statesmen  and  our  most  eminent  writers, 
I  should  say,  indeed,  among  all  men  of  sense  and  reflection,  a  decided  conviction  that  the 
maintenance  of  this  prohibitory  system  is  exceedingly  impolitic.  We  have  recently  made 
a  certain  progress  towards  the  removal  of  the  evil.  Are  we  to  stop  short  1  If  we  do  stop 
short,  what  will  foreign  nations  say,  and  justly  say,  of  our  conduct  1  Will  they  not  say, 
that,  though  we  profess  liberality,  we  hate  it  in  our  hearts  1  that  we  have  been  endeavour- 
ing to  cajole  them  to  admit  our  own  manufactures  into  their  territories,  while  we  continue 
rigidly  by  every  means  in  our  power,  and  by  adhering  closely  to  an  antiquated  system,  to 
exclude  theirs  1  When  our  practice  is  so  at  variance  with  our  professions,  it  is  impossible 
that  they  should  give  any  credit  to  our  assertions.  Whenever  a  foreign  state  imposes  a  new 
duty  on  any  of  our  manufactures,  my  right  honorable  friend,  the  President  of  the  Board  of 
Trade,  is  assaulted  by  representations  from  all  quarters;  instant  measures  are  to  be  adopted 
to  get  the  duty  removed,  and  we  are  to  remonstrate  with  the  foreign  power  against  its  con- 
tinuance. What  would  be  the  consequence  1  Our  Ambassador  is  instructed  to  state  to  the 
foreign  court  at  which  he  resides,  diat  the  new  duty  imposed  is  very  injurious  to  British  in- 
terests, and  is  viewed  by  this  country  in  an  unfriendly  light.  The  answer  of  the  foreign 
minister  of  course  must  be — '  It  may  be  so;  we  cannot  help  it;  for  how  can  we  admit 
your  goods,  if  you  do  not  admit  ours  V  With  such  a  reply,  the  British  Ambassador  must 
make  his  bow  and  retire,  discomfited  and  ashamed;  and  I  defy  the  ingenuity  of  man  to  in- 
vent an  argument  to  refute  the  powerful  argumentum  ad  hominem  of  the  foreign  minister. 
Other  countries  must  conclude  that  we  are  only  attempting  to  delude  them ;  that  it  is  all 
pretence  and  hypocrisy  on  our  part;  and  that  we  do  not  really  believe  that  there  is  practical 
soundness  in  the  principles  we  abstractedly  recommend.  I  myself  am  well  satisfied  of  the 
practical  soundness  of  those  principles,  and  that  we  ought  to  take  the  first  opportunity  of 
adopting  them.  (Hear,  hear  )  There  never  was  so  favorable  an  opportunity  as  the  present 
for  carrying  our  principles  into  effect,  and  for  inviting  foreign  powers  to  act  in  accordance 
with  them.  Let  us  invite  them  to  join  with  us  in  cutting  the  cords  that  tie  down  commerce 
to  the  earth,  that  it  may  soar  aloft,  unconfined  and  unrestricted.  (Hear,  hear.)  If  ever  an 
opportunity  for  accomplishing  this  great  good  was  afforded,  it  is  the  moment  when  I  am 
speaking — and  for  God's" sake  let  us  embrace  it.  Are  not  our  manufactures  now  in  a  state 
of  universal  activity  1  Is  not  everything  in  a  condition  of  improvement  1  And  is  not  capi- 
tal in  eager  search  of  the  means  by  which  it  may  be  profitably  expended?  (Hear,  hear.) 
We  have  thus  the  finest  opportunity  for  emancipating  ourselves  from  ancient  prejudices,  and 
for  making  a  new  start  in  the  race  of  wealth  and  prosperity.  (Hear,  hear.)  On  these 
grounls  I  am  anxious  to  propose  the  adoption  of  this  literal  system.  But  give  me  leave  to 
ask,  if  diere  are  not  many  others  independent  of  those  merely  of  a  commercial  nature, 
which  strongly  support  it?  In  the  first  place,  is  it  not  perfectly  well  known,  diat,  after  all, 
these  prohibitions,  guard  them  and  fence  them  with  laws  as  you  will,  are,  in  point  of  fact 
evaded.  (Hear,  hear.)  I  remember,  and  I  dare  say  many  others  have  not  forgotten,  when 
the  Hon.  Member  for  Aberdeen,  last  year,  even  in  this  place,  produced  his  Bandana  hand- 
kerchief: he  triumphantly  unfurled  the  standard  of  smuggling;  he  hoisted,  as  it  were,  the 
colors  of  opposition  to  the  Government  and  its  laws,  and  having  complacently  blown  his 
nose  upon  them,  he  returned  them  to  his  pocket.  (Cheering  and  laughter.)  He  might  not 
know  at  the  time,  though  I  reminded  him  of  it  afterwards,  hat  there  was  not  a  gentleman 
near  him  at  the  time  who  had  not  a  right  to  take  possession  <  f  diat  handkerchief  and  export 
it  to  a  foreign  country.  (Hear.)  I  mention  this  fact  only  as  a  strong  practical  illustration 
of  the  utter  impossibility  of  carrying  these  prohibitions  intocomplete  effect.  Everylxxly  who 
39  BB* 


306 

nas  been  on  some  parts  of  the  coast,  has  seen  foreign  vessels  coming  in  from  the  neighbour- 
ing continent,  and  has,  no  doubt,  often  observed  females  step  out  of  them,  apparently  of  the 
most  uncomfortable  corpulency.  In  due  time,  and  without  any  surgical  aid,  they  were 
safely  delivered  of  their  burdens,  and  were  restored  to  the  natural  slimness  of  their  graceful 
figures.  (Laughter.)  Such  I  believe  to  be  a  very  common  practice ;  and  there  is,  in  fact, 
no  end  to  the  ingenuity  of  the  devices  to  introduce  contraband  articles.  Not  only  ingenuity 
is  displayed,  but  fraud  and  crime — perjury,  and  every  possible  evil  moral  consequence. 
We  all  know,  that  crime  begets  crime ;  that,  in  whatever  it  may  begin,  a  progenies  vitio- 
sior  always  springs  up;  Nemo  repente  fuit  turpissimus  J  and  a  man  who  begins  as  a 
smuggler  will  probably  end  as  something  much  worse.  Perhaps  he  smuggles  in  the  first 
instance  only  with  the  innocent  purpose  of  making  a  present  to  a  female  friend  or  relative; 
but  when  a  man  is  accustomed  to  the  violation  of  the  law,  he  will  not  find  it  very  difficult, 
by  degrees,  to  go  further.  He  finds  that  he  cannot  effect  his  object  without  concealment — 
he  takes  a  false  oath,  and  becomes  familiarized  to  that  species  of  perjury.  He  commences 
by  presents  ;  then  thinks  he  may  turn  the  practice  to  pecuniary  advantage ;  he  smuggles  upon 
a  larger  scale ;  he  extends  his  adventures,  and  instead  of  gloves,  shoes,  or  silks,  he  tries  the 
experiment  of  more  valuable  articles.  He  makes  money,  and  in  time  is  induced  to  embark 
in  more  desperate  and  more  criminal  speculations.  What  is  the  consequence  1  You  are 
obliged  to  keep  up  a  navy  to  prevent  contraband  trade,  a  circumstance  alluded  to  on  a  for- 
mer night.  Battle  and  bloodshed  ensue — the  loss  of  life,  and  perhaps  deliberate  murder. 
All  this  is  very  melancholy,  and  yet  for  what  is  it  incurred  1  Under  the  fanciful  notion 
that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  the  silk  manufacture  of  this  country.  Why,  Lord  bless  me,  sir, 
we  know  very  well,  after  all,  that  the  British  silk  manufacture  is  so  highly  thought  of  abroad 
at  this  moment,  that  I  believe,  if  a  market  were  open  where  the  goods  of  this  kingdom 
should  compete  with  those  of  any  other,  the  British  goods  would  drive  all  rivalship  out  of 
the  field.  (Hear,  hear,  hear.)  If  this  be  so,  there  is  not  the  slightest  pretence  for  saying 
that,  to  change  the  system,  would  be  to  injure  our  silk  manufactures.  Let  us  accompany  it 
with  a  reduction  of  duty  on  the  raw  article,  and  there  is  not  a  foreign  country  that  will  not 
be  glad  to  take  our  manufactured  silks.  I,  therefore,  hope  that  the  House  will  think  it  full 
time  to  throw  down  this  hollow,  gilded,  and  distorted  idol  of  imaginary  protection  :  to  hurl 
it  from  its  base,  and  to  establish  on  the  same  foundation  the  well-proportioned  statue  of 
commercial  liberty.     (Hear,  hear,  hear.)" 


SPEECH 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  TARIFF    BILL. 

MAY  9, 1828. 

Mr.  President, — This  subject  is  surrounded  with  embarrassments, 
on  all  sides.  Of  itself,  however  wisely  or  temperately  treated,  it  is 
full  of  difficulties;  and  these  difficulties  have  not  been  diminished 
by  the  particular  frame  of  this  bill,  nor  by  the  manner  hitherto  pur- 
sued of  proceeding  with  it.  A  diversity  of  interests  exist,  or  is 
supposed  to  exist,  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  This  is  one 
source  of  difficulty.  Different  opinions  are  entertained  as  to  the 
constitutional  power  of  Congress;  this  is  another.  And  then,  again, 
different  members  of  the  Senate  have  instructions  which  they  feel 
bound  to  obey,  and  which  clash  with  one  another.  We  have  this 
morning  seen  an  honorable  member  from  New  York,  an  important 
motion  being  under  consideration,  lay  his  instructions  on  the  table, 
and  point  to  them,  as  his  power  of  attorney  and  as  containing  the 
directions  for  his  vote. 

Those  who  intend  to  oppose  this  bill,  under  all  circumstances,  and 
in  all  or  any  forms,  care  not  how  objectionable  it  now  is,  or  how  bad 
it  may  be  made.  Others,  finding  their  own  leading  objects  satisfac- 
torily secured  by  it,  naturally  enough  press  forward,  without  staying 
to  consider,  deliberately,  how  injuriously  other  interests  may  be 
affected.  All  these  causes  create  embarrassments,  and  inspire  just 
fears  that  a  wise  and  useful  result  is  hardly  to  be  expected.  There 
seems  a  strange  disposition  to  run  the  hazard  of  extremes;  and  to 
forget,  that  in  cases  of  this  kind,  measure,  proportion,  and  degree  are 
objects  of  inquiry,  and  the  true  rules  of  judgment.  I  have  not  had  the 
slightest  wish  to  discuss  the  measure;  not  believing  that,  in  the  pre- 
sent state  of  things,  any  good  could  be  done  by  me,  in  that  way. 
But  the  frequent  declaration  that  this  was  altogether  a  New  Eng- 
land measure,  a  bill  for  securing  a  monopoly  to  the  capitalists  of  the 
north,  and  other  expressions  of  a  similar  nature,  have  induced  me  to 
say  a  few  words. 

New  England,  sir,  has  not  been  a  leader  in  this  policy.  On  the 
contrary,  she  held  back  herself  and  tried  to  hold  others  back  from 
it,  from  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  to  1824.  Up  to  1324,  she 
was  accused  of  sinister  and  selfish  designs,  because  she  discountenanc- 
ed the  progress  of  this  policij.  It  was  laid  to  her  charge,  then,  that 
having  established  her  manufactures  herself,  she  wished  that  others 


308 

should  not  have  the  power  of  rivalling  her;  and,  for  that  reason, 
opposed  all  legislative  encouragement.  Under  this  angry  denuncia- 
tion against  her,  the  act  of  1824  passed.  Now,  the  imputation  is 
precisely  of  an  opposite  character.  The  present  measure,  is  pronoun- 
ced to  be  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  New  England;  to  be  brought 
forward  by  her  agency,  and  designed  to  gratify  the  cupidity  of  her 
wealthy  establishments. 

Both  charges,  sir,  are  equally  without  the  slightest  foundation. 
The  opinion  of  New  England,  up  to  1824,  was  founded  in  the  con- 
viction that,  on  the  whole,  it  was  wisest  and  best,  both  for  herself 
and  others,  that  manufactures  should  make  haste  slowly.  She  felt 
a  reluctance  to  trust  great  interests  on  the  foundation  of  government 
patronage;  for  who  could  tell  how  long  such  patronage  would  last,  or 
with  what  steadiness,  skill,  or  perseverance  it  would  continue  to  be 
granted?  It  is  now  nearly  fifteen  years  since,  among  the  first  things 
which  I  ever  ventured  to  say  here,  was  the  expression  of  a  serious 
doubt  whether  this  government  was  fitted,  by  its  construction,  to 
administer  aid  and  protection  to  particular  pursuits;  whether,  having 
called  such  pursuits  into  being  by  indications  of  its  favor,  it  would 
not  afterwards  desert  them,  when  troubles  come  upon  them,  and 
leave  them  to  their  fate.  Whether  this  prediction,  the  result,  certain- 
ly, of  chance,  and  not  of  sagacity,  will  so  soon  be  fulfilled,  remains 
to  be  seen 

At  the  same  time  it  is  true,  that  from  the  very  first  commencement 
of  the  government,  those  who  have  administered  its  concerns  have 
held  a  tone  of  encouragement  and  invitation  towards  those  who 
should  embark  in  manufactures.  All  the  Presidents,  I  believe  with- 
out exception,  have  concurred  in  this  general  sentiment;  and  the 
very  first  act  of  Congress,  laying  duties  of  import,  adopted  the  then 
unusual  expedient  of  a  preamble,  apparently  for  little  other  purpose 
than  that  of  declaring,  that  the  duties  which  it  imposed  were 
imposed  for  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  manufactures. 
When,  at  the  commencement  of  the  late  war,  duties  were  doubled, 
we  were  told  that  we  should  find  a  mitigation  of  the  weight  of  taxa- 
tion, in  the  new  aid  and  succour  which  would  be  thus  afforded  to  our 
own  manufacturing  labor.  Like  arguments  were  urged,  and  prevail- 
ed, but  not  by  the  aid  of  New  England  votes,  when  the  tariff  was 
afterwards  arranged,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  in  1816.  Finally,  after 
a  whole  winter's  deliberation,  the  act  of  1824  received  the  sanction 
of  both  houses  of  Congress,  and  settled  the  policy  of  the  country. 
What,  then,  was  New  England  to  do?  She  was  fitted  for  manufac- 
turing operations,  by  the  amount  and  character  of  her  population,  by 
her  capital,  by  the  vigor  and  energy  of  her  free  labor,  by  the  skill, 
economy,  enterprise,  and  perseverance  of  her  people.  I  repeat, 
What  was  she,  under  these  circumstances,  to  do?  A  great  and 
prosperous  rival  in  her  near  neighbourhood,  threatening  to  draw  from 
her  a  part,  perhaps  a  great  part,  of  her  foreign  commerce:  was  she 
to  use,  or  to  neglect,  those  other  means  of  seeking  her  own  prosper- 
ity which  belonged  to  her  character  and  her  condition?  Was  she  to 
hold  out,  forever,  against  the  course  of  the  government,  and  see 
herself  losing  on  one  side,  and  yet  make  no  effort  to  sustain  herself 
on  the  other?     No,  air.     Nothing  was  left  to  New  England,  after 


309 

the  act  of  1824,  but  to  conform  herself  to  the  will  of  others.  Noth- 
ing was  left  to  her,  but  to  consider  that  the  government  had  fixed  and 
determined  its  own  policy;  and  that  policy  was  protection. 

New  England,  poor,  in  some  respects,  in  others,  is  as  wealthy  as 
her  neighbours.  Her  soil  would  be  held  in  low  estimation,  by  those 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  and  some 
of  the  meadows  of  the  south.  But  in  industry,  in  habits  of  labor, 
skill,  and  in  accumulated  capital,  the  fruit  of  two  centuries  of  indus- 
try, she  may  be  said  to  be  rich.  After  this  final  declaration — this 
solemn  promulgation  of  the  policy  of  the  government,  I  again  ask, 
What  was  she  to  do  ?  Was  she  to  deny  herself  the  use  of  her  advan- 
tages, natural  and  acquired?  Was  she  to  content  herself  with  use- 
less regrets?  Was  she  longer  to  resist,  what  she  could  no  longer 
prevent?  Or,  was  she,  rather,  to  adapt  her  acts  to  her  condition; 
and  seeing  the  policy  of  the  government  thus  settled  and  fixed,  to 
accommodate  to  it,  as  well  as  she  could,  her  own  pursuits  and  her 
own  industry?  Every  man  will  see  that  she  had  no  option.  Every 
man  will  confess  that  there  remained  for  her  but  one  course.  She 
not  only  saw  this  herself,  but  had,  all  along,  foreseen,  that  if  the 
system  of  protecting  manufactures  should  be  adopted,  she  must  go 
largely  into  them.  I  believe,  sir,  almost  every  man  from  New  Eng- 
land who  voted  against  the  law  of  1824,  declared,  that  if,  notwith- 
standing his  opposition  to  that  law,  it  should  still  pass,  there  would 
be  no  alternative  but  to  consider  the  course  and  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment as  then  settled  and  fixed,  and  to  act  accordingly.  The  law 
did  pass;  and  a  vast  increase  of  investment  in  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments was  the  consequence.  Those  who  made  such  invest- 
ments, probably  entertained  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  as  much  as 
was  promised  would  be  effectually  granted;  and  that  if,  owing  to  any 
unforeseen  occurrence,  or  untoward  event,  the  benefit  designed  by 
the  law,  to  any  branch  of  manufactures,  should  not  be  realized,  it 
would  furnish  a  fair  case  for  the  consideration  of  government.  Cer- 
tainly, they  could  not  expect,  after  what  had  passed,  that  interests 
of  great  magnitude  would  be  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  very  first 
change  of  circumstances  which  might  occur. 

As  a  general  remark,  it  may  be  said,  that  the  interests  concerned 
in  the  act  of  1824,  did  not  complain  of  their  condition  under  it, 
excepting  only  those  connected  with  the  woollen  manufactures. 
These  did  complain;  not  so  much  of  the  act  itself,  as  of  a  new  state 
of  circumstances,  unforeseen  when  the  law  passed,  but  which  had  now 
arisen  to  thwart  its  beneficial  operations,  as  to  them;  although  in  one 
respect,  perhaps,  the  law  itself  was  thought  to  be  unwisely  framed. 

Three  causes  have  been  generally  stated,  as  having  produced  the 
disappointment  experienced  by  the  manufacturers  of  wool,  under  the 
law  of  1824. 

First,  it  is  alleged,  that  the  price  of  the  raw  material  had  been 
raised  too  high,  by  the  act  itself.  This  point  had  been  discussed 
at  the  time,  and  although  opinions  varied,  the  result,  so  far  as  it 
depended  on  this  part  of  the  case,  though  it  may  be  said  to  have 
been  unexpected,  was  certainly  not  entirely  unforeseen.* 

*  Extract  from  Mr.  Webster's  Speech,  on  the  Tariff  of  1824.—"  This  bill  proposes,  also, 
a  very  high  duty  upon  imported  wool ;  and  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  a  majority  of  the  manufac- 

v^V>       OF  THE        3*\ 

subtivbrsittI 


310 

But,  secondly,  the  manufacturers  imputed  their  disappointment  to 
a  reduction  of  the  price  of  wool  in  England,  which  took  place 
just  about  the  date  of  the  law  of  1824.  This  reduction  was  pro- 
duced by  lowering  the  duty  on  imported  wool  from  sixpence  sterling 
to  one  penny  sterling  per  pound.  The  effect  of  this  is  obvious 
enough;  but  in  order  to  see  the  real  extent  of  the  reduction,  it  may 
be  convenient  to  state  the  matter  more  particularly. 

The  meaning  of  our  law  was  doubtless  to  give  the  American 
manufacturer  an  advantage  over  his  English  competitors.  Protection 
must  mean  this,  or  it  means  nothing.  The  English  manufacturer 
having  certain  advantages,  on  his  side,  such  as  the  lower  price  of 
labor,  and  the  lower  interest  of  money;  the  object  of  our  law  was 
to  counteract  these  advantages,  by  creating  others,  in  behalf  of  the 
American  manufacturer.  Therefore,  to  see  what  was  necessary  to 
be  done,  in  order  that  the  American  manufacturer  might  sustain  the 
competition,  a  relative  view  of  the  respective  advantages  and  disad- 
vantages was  to  be  taken.  In  this  view  the  very  first  element  to  be 
considered  was,  what  is  to  each  party  the  cost  of  the  raw  material. 
On  this,  the  whole  must  materially  depend.  Now  when  the  law  of 
1824  passed,  the  English  manufacturer  paid  a  duty  of  sixpence  ster- 
ling on  imported  wool.  But  in  a  very  few  days  afterwards,  this 
duty  was  reduced  by  Parliament,  from  sixpence  to  a  penny.  A 
reduction  of  five  pence  per  pound,  in  the  price  of  wool,  was  estima- 
ted in  Parliament  to  be  equal  to  a  reduction  of  twenty-six  per  cent., 
ad  valorem,  on  all  imported  wool;  and  this  reduction,  it  is  obvious, 
had  its  effect  on  the  price  of  home-produced  wool  also.  Almost, 
then,  at  the  very  moment,  that  the  framers  of  the  act  of  1824,  were 
raising  the  price  of  the  raw  material  here,  as  that  act  did  raise  it,  it 
was  lowered  in  England,  by  the  very  great  reduction  of  twenty-six 
per  cent.  Of  course,  this  changed  the  whole  basis  of  the  calculation. 
It  wrought  a  complete  change  in  the  relative  advantages  and  disad- 
vantages of  the  English  and  American  competitors;  and  threw  the 
preponderance  of  advantage,  most  decidedly,  on  the  side  of  the 
English.  If  the  American  manufacturer  had  not  vastly  too  great  a 
preference,  before  this  reduction  took  place,  it  is  clear  he  had  too 
little  afterwards. 

In  a  paper  which  has  been  presented  to  the  Senate,  and  often 
referred  to;  a  paper  distinguished  for  the  ability  and  clearness  with 
which  it  enforces  general  principles — the  Boston  Report, — it  is 
clearly  proved,  (what  indeed  is  sufficiently  obvious  from  the  mere 
comparison  of  dates)  that  the  British  government  did  not  reduce  its 
duty  on  wool  because  of  our  act  of  1824.  Certainly  this  is  true;  but 
the  effect  of  that  reduction,  on  our  manufactures,  was  the  same 
precisely  as  if  the  British  act  had  been  designed  to  operate  against 
them,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  I  think  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
our  law  of  1824,  and  the  reduction  of  the  wool  duty  in  England, 
taken  together,  left  our  manufactures  in  a  worse  condition  than  they 
were  before.  If  there  was  any  reasonable  ground,  therefore,  for 
passing  the  law  of  1824,  there  is  now  the  same  ground  for  some 
other  measure;  and  this  ground  too,  is  reenforced  by  the  considera- 

turers  are  at  least  extremely  doubtful  whether,  taking  these  two  provisions  together,  the 
state  of  the  law  is  not  better  for  them  now  than  it  would  be  if  this  should  pass  " 


311 

tion  of  the  hopes  excited,  the  enterprises  undertaken,  and  the  capi- 
tal invested,  in  consequence  of  that  law. 

So  much,  sir,  for  this  cause  of  disappointment. 

In  the  last  place,  it  was  alleged  by  the  manufacturers,  that  they 
suffered  from  the  mode  of  collecting  the  duties  on  woollen  fabrics  at 
the  custom-houses.  These  duties  are  ad  valorem  duties.  Such 
duties,  from  the  commencement  of  the  government,  have  been  esti- 
mated by  reference  to  the  invoice,  as  fixing  the  value  at  the  place 
whence  imported.  When  not  suspected  to  be  false  or  fraudulent, 
the  invoice  is  the  regular  proof  of  value.  Originally  this  was  a  tol- 
erably safe  mode  of  proceeding.  While  the  importation  was  mainly 
in  the  hands  of  American  merchants,  the  invoice  would  of  course,  if 
not  false  or  fraudulent,  express  the  terms  and  the  price  of  an  actual 
purchase  and  sale.  But  an  invoice  is  not,  necessarily,  an  instrument 
expressing  the  sale  of  goods  and  their  prices.  If  there  be  but  a 
list,  or  catalogue,  with  prices  stated  by  way  of  estimate,  it  is  still  an 
invoice,  and  within  the  law.  Now  the  suggestion  is,  that  the  English 
manufacturer,  in  making  out  an  invoice,  in  which  prices  are  thus 
stated  by  himself,  in  the  way  of  estimate  merely,  is  able  to  obtain 
an  important  advantage  over  the  American  merchant  who  purchases 
in  the  same  market,  and  whose  invoice  states,  consequently,  the 
actual  prices,  on  the  sale.  And  in  proof  of  this  suggestion  it  is 
alleged,  that  in  the  largest  importing  city  in  the  union,  a  very  great 
proportion,  some  say  nearly  all,  of  the  woollen  fabrics  are  imported 
on  foreign  account.  The  various  papers  which  have  come  before 
us,  praying  for  a  tax  on  auction  sales,  aver  that  the  invoice  of  the 
foreign  importer  is  generally  decidedly  lower  than  that  of  the 
American  importer;  and  that,  in  consequence  of  this  and  of  the 
practice  of  sales  at  auction,  the  American  merchant  must  be  driven 
out  of  the  trade.  I  cannot  answer  for  the  entire  accuracy  of  these 
statements,  but  I  have  no  doubt  there  is  something  of  truth  in  them. 
The  main  facts  have  been  often  stated,  and  I  have  neither  seen  nor 
heard  a  denial  of  them. 

Is  it  true,  then,  that  nearly  the  whole  importation  of  woollens  is,  in 
the  largest  importing  city,  in  the  hands  of  foreigners?  Is  it.  true, 
as  stated,  that  the  invoices  of  such  foreign  importers  are,  generally, 
found  to  be  lower  than  those  of  the  American  importer?  If  these 
things  be  so,  it  will  be  admitted  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
undervaluations  do  take  place;  and  that  some  corrective  for  the  evil 
should  be  administered.  I  am  glad  to  see  that  the  American  mer- 
chants themselves,  begin  to  bestow  attention  to  a  subject,  as  interest- 
ing to  them  as  it  is  to  the  manufacturers. 

Under  this  state  of  things,  sir,  the  law  of  the  last  session  was 
proposed.  It  was  confined,  as  I  thought  properly,  to  wool  and  wool- 
lens. It  took  up  the  great  and  leading  subject  of  complaint,  and 
nothing  else.  It  was  urged  indeed,  against  that  bill,  that  although 
much  had  been  said  of  frauds  at  the  custom-house,  no  provision  was 
made  in  it  for  the  prevention  of  such  frauds.  That  is  a  mistake. 
The  general  frame  of  the  bill  was  such,  that,  if  skilfully  drawn  and 
adapted  to  its  purpose,  its  tendency  to  prevent  such  frauds  would  be 
manifest.  By  the  fixing  of  prices  at  successive  points  of  gradua- 
tion, or  minimums,  as  they  are  called,  the  power  of  evading  duties  bv 


312 

undervaluations  would  be  most  materially  restrained.  If  these 
points,  indeed,  were  sufficiently  distant,  it  is  obvious  the  duty  would 
assume  something  of  the  certainty  and  precision  of  a  specific  duty. 
But  this  bill  failed,  and  Congress  adjourned,  in  March  last  year, 
leaving  the  subject  where  it  had  found  it. 

The  complaints,  which  had  given  rise  to  the  bill,  continued;  and 
in  the  course  of  the  summer,  a  meeting  of  the  wool-growers  and 
wool-manufacturers  assembled  in  Pennsylvania,  and  agreed  on  a 
petition  to  Congress.  I  do  not  feel  it  necessary,  on  behalf  of  the 
citizens  of  Massachusetts,  to  disclaim  a  participation  in  that  meet- 
ing. Persons  of  much  worth  and  respectability,  attended  it  from 
Massachusetts,  and  its  proceedings  and  results  manifested,  I  think, 
a  degree  of  temper  and  moderation,  highly  creditable  to  those  who 
composed  it. 

But  while  the  bill  of  last  year  was  confined  to  that  which  alone 
had  been  a  subject  of  complaint,  the  bill  now  before  us  is  of  a  very 
different  description.  It  proposes  to  raise  duties  on  various  other 
articles,  besides  wool  and  woollens.  It  contains  some  provisions 
which  bear,  with  unnecessary  severity,  on  the  whole  community; 
others  which  affect,  with  peculiar  hardship,  particular  interests; 
while  both  of  them  benefit  nobody  and  nothing  but  the  treasury. 
It  contains  provisions,  which,  with  whatever  motive  put  into  it,  it  is 
confessed  are  now  kept  in  for  the  very  purpose  of  destroying  the 
bill  altogether;  or,  with  the  intent  to  compel  those  who  expect  to 
derive  benefit,  to  feel  smart  from  it  also.  Probably  such  a  motive 
of  action  has  not  often  been  avowed. 

The  wool  manufacturers  think  they  have  made  out  a  case,  for 
the  interposition  of  Congress.  They  happen  to  live,  principally,  at 
the  north  and  east;  and  in  a  bill,  professing  to  be  for  their  relief, 
other  provisions  are  found,  which  are  supposed,  (and  supported, 
because  they  are  supposed,)  to  be  such  as  will  press,  with  peculiar 
hardship,  on  that  quarter  of  the  country.  Sir,  what  can  be  expect- 
ed, but  evil,  when  a  temper  like  this  prevails?  How  can  such  a 
hostile,  retaliatory  legislation  be  reconciled  to  common  justice,  or 
common  prudence?  Nay,  sir,  this  rule  of  action  seems  carried  still 
farther.  Not  only  are  clauses  found,  and  continued  in  the  bill, 
which  oppress  particular  interests,  but  taxes  are  laid,  also,  which 
will  be  severely  felt  by  the  whole  union;  and  this  too  with  the  same 
design,  and  for  the  same  end  before  mentioned,  of  causing  the 
smart  of  the  bill  to  be  felt.  Of  this  description  is  the  molasses  tax; 
a  tax,  in  my  opinion,  absurd  and  preposterous,  in  relation  to  any 
object  of  protection;  needlessly  oppressive  to  the  whole  community; 
and  benefiting  nobody  on  earth,  but  the  treasury.  And  yet,  here  it 
is,  and  here  it  is  kept,  under  an  idea,  conceived  in  ignorance,  and 
cherished  for  a  short  lived  triumph,  that  New  England  will  be  de- 
terred, by  this  tax,  from  protecting  her  extensive  woollen  manufac- 
tures; or,  if  not,  that  the  authors  of  this  policy  may  at  least  have 
the  pleasure,  the  high  pleasure,  of  perceiving  that  she  feels  the 
effects  of  this  bill. 

Sir,  let  us  look,  for  a  moment,  at  this  tax.  The  molasses  impor- 
ted into  the  United  States  amounts  to  thirteen  millions  annually. 
Of  this  quantity,  not  more  than  three  millions  are  distilled;  the  re- 


313 

mairnng  ten  millions  being  consumed,  as  an  article  of  wholesome 
c./od.  The  proposed  tax  is  not  to  be  laid  for  revenue.  That  is  not 
pretended.  It  was  not  introduced  for  the  benefit  of  the  sugar  plan- 
ters. They  are  contented  with  their  present  condition,  and  have 
applied  for  nothing.  What,  then,  was  the  object?  Sir,  the  original 
professed  object,  was,  to  increase,  by  this  new  duty  on  molasses, 
the  consumption  of  spirits  distilled  from  grain.  This,  I  say,  was 
the  object  originally  professed.  But  in  this  point  of  view,  the  mea- 
sure appears  to  me  to  be  preposterous.  It  is  monstrous,  and  out  of 
all  proportion  and  relation  of  means  to  ends.  It  proposes  to  double 
the  duty  on  the  ten  millions  of  gallons  of  molasses  which  are  con- 
sumed for  food,  in  order  that  it  may  likewise  double  the  duty  on  the 
three  millions  which  are  distilled  into  spirits;  and  all  this,  for  the 
contingent  and  doubtful  purpose  of  augmenting  the  consumption  of 
spirits  distilled  from  grain.  I  say  contingent  and  doubtful  purpose; 
because  I  do  not  believe  any  such  effect  will  be  produced.  I  do 
not  think  a  hundred  gallons  more  of  spirits  distilled  from  grain  will 
find  a  market  in  consequence  of  this  tax  on  molasses.  The  debate, 
here  and  elsewere,  has  shown  that,  I  think,  clearly.  But  suppose 
some  slight  effect  of  that  kind  should  be  produced;  is  it  so  desirable 
an  object,  as  that  it  should  be  sought  by  such  means?  Shall  we  tax 
food,  to  encourage  intemperance?  Shall  we  raise  the  price  of  a 
wholesome  article  of  sustenance,  of  daily  consumption,  especially 
among  the  poorer  classes,  in  order  that  we  may  enjoy  a  mere  chance 
of  causing  these  same  classes  to  use  more  of  our  homemade  ar- 
dent spirits? 

Sir,  the  bare  statement  of  this  question  puts  it  beyond  the  reach 
of  all  argument.  No  man  will  seriously  undertake  the  defence  of 
such  a  tax.  It  is  better,  much  more  candid  certainly,  to  admit,  as 
has  been  admitted,  that,  obnoxious  as  it  is,  and  abominable  as  it  is, 
it  is  kept  in  the  bill  with  a  special  view  to  its  effects  on  New  Eng- 
land votes,  and  New  England  interests. 

The  bill  also  takes  away  all  the  drawback,  allowed  by  existing 
laws,  on  the  exportation  of  spirits  distilled  from  molasses;  and  this, 
it  is  supposed,  and  truly  supposed,  will  affect  New  England.  It 
will  considerably  affect  her;  for  the  exportation  of  such  spirits  is  a 
part  of  her  trade,  and  though  not  great  in  amount,  it  is  a  part  which 
mingles  usefully  with  the  exportation  of  other  articles,  assists  to 
make  out  variety  of  cargo,  and  finds  a  market  in  the  North  of  Eu- 
rope, the  Mediterranean,  and  in  South  America.  This  exportation 
the  bill  proposes  entirely  to  destroy. 

The  increased  duty  on  molasses,  while  it  thus  needlessly  and 
wantonly  enhances  the  price  to  the  consumer,  may  affect  also,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  the  importation  of  that  article;  and  be  thus 
injurious  to  the  commerce  of  the  country.  The  importation  of  mo- 
lasses, in  exchange  for  lumber,  provisions,  and  other  articles  of  our 
own  production,  is  one  of  the  largest  portions  of  our  West  India 
trade;  a  trade,  it  may  be  added,  though  of  small  profit,  yet  of  short 
voyages,  suited  to  small  capitals,  employing  many  hands,  and  much 
navigation;  and  the  earliest  and  oldest  branch  of  our  foreign  com- 
merce. That  portion  of  this  trade  which  we  now  enjoy  is  conduct- 
ed on  the  freest  and  most  liberal  principles.  The  exports  which 
40  cc 


314 

sustain  it  are  from  the  East,  the  South,  and  the  West;  every  part 
of  the  country  having,  thus,  an  interest  in  its  continuance  and  ex- 
tension. A  market  for  these  exports,  to  any  of  these  portions  of  the 
country,  is  infinitely  of  more  importance  to  it  than  all  the  benefit  to 
be  expected  from  the  supposed  increased  consumption  of  spirits  dis- 
tilled from  grain. 

Yet,  sir,  this  tax  is  to  be  kept  in  the  bill,  that  New  England  may 
be  made  to  feel.  Gentlemen  who  hold  it  to  be  wholly  unconstitu- 
tional to  lay  any  tax,  whatever,  for  the  purposes  intended  by  this 
bill,  yet  cordially  vote  for  this  tax.  An  honorable  gentleman  from 
Maryland,  (Mr.  Smith,)  calls  the  whole  bill  a  "  bill  of  abomina- 
tions." This  tax,  he  agrees,  is  one  of  its  abominations,  yet  he  votes 
for  it.  Both  the  gentlemen  from  North  Carolina  have  signified  their 
dissatisfaction  with  the  bill,  yet  they  have  both  voted  to  double  the  tax 
on  molasses.  Sir,  do  gentlemen  flatter  themselves  that  this  course  of 
policy  can  answer  their  purposes?  Do  they  not  perceive,  that  such 
a  mode  of  proceeding,  with  a  view  to  such  avowed  objects,  must 
waken  a  spirit,  that  shall  treat  taunt  with  scorn,  and  bid  menace  de- 
fiance? Do  they  not  know,  if  they  do  not,  it  is  time  they  did,  that 
a  policy  like  this,  avowed  with  such  self  satisfaction,  persisted  in 
with  a  delight  which  should  only  accompany  the  discovery  of  some 
new  and  wonderful  improvement  in  legislation,  will  compel  every 
New  England  man  to  feel  that  he  is  degraded  and  debased,  if  he 
does  not  resist  it  ? 

Sir,  gentlemen  mistake  us.  They  greatly  mistake  us.  To  those 
who  propose  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  government,  and  to  enact  laws 
on  such  principles  as  these,  and  for  such  objects  as  these,  New  Eng- 
land, be  assured,  will  exhibit,  not  submission,  but  resistance;  not 
humiliation,  but  disdain.  Against  her,  depend  on  it,  nothing  will  be 
gained  by  intimidation.  If  you  propose  to  suffer,  yourselves,  in 
order  that  she  may  be  made  to  suffer  also,  she  will  bid  you  come 
on — she  will  meet  challenge,  with  challenge;  she  will  invite  you  to 
do  your  worst,  and  your  best,  and  to  see  who  will  hold  out  longest. 
She  has  offered  you  every  one  of  her  votes  in  the  Senate  to  strike 
out  this  tax  on  molasses.  You  have  refused  to  join  her,  and  to 
strike  it  out.  With  the  aid  of  the  votes  of  any  one  southern  state, 
for  example  of  North  Carolina,  it  could  have  been  struck  out.  But 
North  Carolina  has  refused  her  votes  for  this  purpose.  She  has 
voted  to  keep  the  tax  in,  and  to  keep  it  in  at  the  highest  rate.  And 
yet,  sir,  North  Carolina,  whatever  she  may  think  of  it,  is  fully  as 
much  interested  in  this  tax  as  Massachusetts.  I  think,  indeed,  she 
is  more  interested,  and  that  she  will  feel  it  more  heavily  and  sorely. 
She  is  herself  a  great  consumer  of  the  article,  throughout  all  her 
classes  of  population.  This  increase  of  the  duty  will  levy  on  her 
citizens  a  new  tax  of  fifty  thousand  dollars  a  year,  or  more;  al- 
though her  Representatives  on  this  floor  have  so  often  told  us  that 
her  people  are  now  poor,  and  already  borne  down  with  taxes.  North 
Carolina  will  feel  this  tax  also  in  her  trade,  for  what  of  foreign  com- 
merce has  she,  more  useful  to  her  than  the  West  India  market  for 
her  provisions  and  lumber?  And  yet  the  gentlemen  from  North 
Carolina  insist  on  keeping  this  tax  in  the  bill.  Let  them  not,  ihen, 
complain.     Let  them  not  hereafter,  call  it  the  work  of  others.     It 


315 

is  their  own  work.  Let  them  not  lay  it  to  the  manufacturers. 
The  manufacturers  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Let  them  not 
lay  it  to  the  wool-growers.  The  wool-growers  have  had  nothing  to 
do  with  it.  Let  them  not  lay  it  to  New  England  New  England 
has  done  nothing  but  to  oppose  it,  and  to  ask  them  to  oppose  it  also. 
No,  sir;  let  them  take  it  to  themselves.  Let  them  enjoy  the  fruit 
of  their  own  doings.  Let  them  assign  their  motives,  for  thus  taxing 
their  own  constituents,  and  abide  their  judgment;  but  do  not  let 
them  flatter  themselves  that  New  England  cannot  pay  a  molasses 
tax  as  long  as  North  Carolina  chooses  that  such  a  tax  shall  be  paid. 

Sir,  I  am  sure  there  is  nobody  here,  envious  of  the  prosperity  of 
New  England,  or  who  would  wish  to  see  it  destroyed.  But  if  there 
be  such  anywhere,  I  cannot  cheer  them  by  holding  out  the  hope  of 
a  speedy  accomplishment  of  their  wishes.  The  prosperity  of  New 
England,  like  that  of  other  parts  of  the  country,  may,  doubtless,  be 
affected  injuriously  by  unwise  or  unjust  laws.  It  may  be  impaired, 
especially,  by  an  unsteady  and  shifting  policy,  which  fosters  particu- 
lar objects  to-day,  and  abandons  them  to-morrow.  She  may  advance 
faster,  or  slower;  but  the  propelling  principle,  be  assured,  is  in  her, 
deep  fixed,  and  active.  Her  course  is  onward  and  forward.  The 
great  powers  of  free  labor,  of  moral  habits,  of  general  education, 
of  good  institutions,  of  skill,  enterprise,  and  perseverance  are  all 
working  with  her,  and  for  her;  and  on  the  small  surface  which  her 
population  covers,  she  is  destined,  I  think,  to  exhibit  striking  re- 
sults of  the  operation  of  these  potent  causes,  in  whatever  consti- 
tutes the  happiness,  or  belongs  to  the  ornament  of  human  society. 

Mr.  President,  this  tax  on  molasses  will  benefit  the  treasury, 
though  it  will  benefit  nobody  else.  Our  finances  will,  at  least,  be 
improved  by  it.  I  assure  the  gentlemen,  we  will  endeavour  to  use 
the  funds  thus  to  be  raised  properly  and  wisely,  and  to  the  public 
advantage.  We  have  already  passed  a  bill  for  the  Delaware  break- 
water; another  is  before  us,  for  the  improvement  of  several  of  our 
harbors;  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  canal  bill  has  been  brought  into 
the  Senate,  while  I  have  been  speaking;  and  next  session  we  hope 
to  bring  forward  the  breakwater  at  Nantucket.  These  appropria- 
tions, sir,  will  require  pretty  ample  means  ;  it  will  be  convenient  to 
have  a  well  supplied  treasury;  and  I  state  for  the  especial  con- 
solation of  the  honorable  gentlemen  from  North  Carolina,  that  so 
long  as  they  choose  to  compel  their  constituents,  and  my  constit- 
uents, to  pay  a  molasses  tax,  the  proceeds  thereof  shall  be  appro- 
priated, as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  to  valuable  national  objects,  in 
useful  and  necessary  works  of  internal  improvements. 

Mr.  President,  in  what  I  have  now  said,  I  have  but  followed 
where  others  have  led,  and  compelled  me  to  follow.  I  have  but 
exhibited  to  gentlemen  the  necessary  consequences  of  their  own 
course  of  proceeding.  But  this  manner  of  passing  laws  is  wholly 
against  my  own  judgment,  and  repugnant  to  all  my  feelings.  And  I 
would,  even  now,  once  more  solicit  gentlemen  to  consider,  whether 
a  different  course  would  not  be  more  worthy  of  the  Senate,  and 
more  useful  to  the  country.  Why  should  we  not  act  upon  this  bill, 
article   by   article,  judge   fairly   of   each,   retain  what  a  majority 


316 

approves,  and  reject  the  rest?  If  it  be,  as  the  gentleman  from 
Maryland  called  it,  "  a  bill  of  abominations,"  why  not  strike  out  as 
many  of  the  abominations  as  we  can?  Extreme  measures  cannot 
tend  to  good.  They  must  produce  mischief.  If  a  proper  and  mod- 
erate bill  in  regard  to  wool  and  woollens  had  passed  last  year,  we 
should  not  now  be  in  our  present  situation.  If  such  a  bill,  extended 
perhaps  to  a  few  other  articles,  if  necessity  so  required,  had  been 
prepared  and  recommended  at  this  session,  much,  both  of  excitement 
and  of  evil,  would  have  been  avoided. 

Nevertheless,  sir,  it  is  for  gentlemen  to  judge  for  themselves. 
If,  when  the  wool  manufacturers  think  they  have  a  fair  right  to  call 
on  Congress  to  carry  into  effect  what  was  intended  for  them  by 
the  law  of  1824,  and  when  there  is  manifested  some  disposition  to 
comply  with  what  they  thus  request,  the  benefit  cannot  be  granted, 
nevertheless,  in  any  other  manner  than  by  inserting  it  in  a  sort  of 
bill  of  pains  and  penalties — a  "  bill  of  abominations,"  it  is  not  for  me 
to  attempt  to  reason  down,  what  has  not  been  reasoned  up;  but  I 
must  content  myself  with  admonishing  gentlemen  that  their  policy  is 
destined,  in  all  probability,  to  terminate  in  their  own  sore  disappoint- 
ment. 

I  advert  once  more,  sir,  to  the  subject  of  wool  and  woollens,  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  that,  even  in  respect  to  that  part  of  the  bill, 
the  interest  mainly  protected  is  not  that  of  the  manufacturers. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  that  of  the  wool-growers.  The  wool-grower 
is  vastly  more  benefited  than  the  manufacturer.  The  interest  of 
the  manufacturer  is  treated  as  secondary,  and  subordinate,  through- 
out the  bill.  Just  so  much,  and  no  more,  is  done  for  him,  as  is 
supposed  necessary  to  enable  him  to  purchase  and  manufacture  the 
wool.  The  agricultural  interest,  the  farming  interest,  the  interest 
of  the  sheep-owner,  is  the  great  object  which  the  bill  is  calculated 
to  benefit,  and  which  it  will  benefit,  if  the  manufacturer  can  be  kept 
alive.  A  comparison  of  existing  duties,  with  those  proposed  on  the 
wool  and  on  the  cloth,  will  show  how  this  part  of  the  case  stands. 

At  present,  a  duty  of  thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  is  laid  on  all 
wool  costing  ten  cents  per  pound,  or  upwards;  and  a  duty  of  fifteen 
per  cent,  on  all  wool  under  that  price. 

The  present  bill  proposes  a  specific  duty  of  four  cents  per  pound, 
and  also  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  fifty  per  cent,  on  all  wool  of  every 
description. 

The  result  of  the  combination  of  these  two  duties,  is,  that  wool 
fit  for  making  good  cloths,  and  costing  from  thirty  to  forty  cents  per 
pound  in  the  foreign  market,  will  pay  a  duty,  at  least  equal  to 
sixty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  And  wool  costing  less  than  ten  cents  in 
the  foreign  market,  will  pay  a  duty,  on  the  average,  of  a  hundred  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 

Now,  sir,  these  heavy  duties  are  laid  for  the  wool-grower.  They 
are  designed  to  give  a  spring  to  agriculture,  by  fostering  one  of  its 
most  important  products. 

But  let  us  see  what  is  done  for  the  manufacturer,  in  order  to 
enable  him  to  manufacture  the  raw  material,  at  prices  so  much 
enhanced. 


317 

As  the  bill  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  advance  of 
duties  on  cloths,  is  supposed  to  have  been  not  more  than  three  per 
cent,  on  the  minimum  points.  Taking  the  amount  of  duty  to  be  now 
thirty-seven  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  on  cloths,  this  bill,  as  it  came  to  us, 
proposed,  if  that  supposition  be  true,  only  to  carry  it  up  to  forty. 
Amendments,  here  adopted,  have  enhanced  this  duty,  and  are  under- 
stood to  have  carried  it  up  to  a  duty  of  forty-five,  or  perhaps  fifty 
per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Taking  it  at  the  highest,  the  duty  on  the 
cloth  is  raised  thirteen  per  cent.;  while  that  on  wool  is  raised  in  some 
instances  thirty,  and  in  some  instances  eighty-five  per  cent.;  that  is, 
in  one  case  from  thirty  to  sixty,  and  in  the  other  from  fifteen  to  a  hun- 
dred. Now  the  calculation  is  said  to  be  true,  which  supposes,  that 
a  duty  of  thirty  per  cent,  on  the  raw  material,  enhances,  by  fifteen 
per  cent.,  the  cost  of  producing  the  cloth;  the  raw  material  being 
estimated,  generally,  to  be  equal  to  half  the  expense  of  the  fabric. 
So  that,  while,  by  this  bill,  the  manufacturer  gains  thirteen  per  cent, 
on  the  cloth,  he  would  appear  to  lose  fifteen  per  cent,  on  the  same 
cloth  by  the  increase  in  the  price  of  the  wool.  And  this  not  only 
would  appear  to  be  true,  but  would,  I  supposer  be  actually  true,  were 
it  not  that  the  market  may  be  open  to  the  manufacturer,  under  this  bill, 
for  such  cloths  as  may  be  furnished  at  prices  intermediate,  between 
the  graduated  prices  established  by  the  bill. 

For  example;  few  or  no  foreign  cloths,  it  is  supposed,  costing 
more  than  fifty  cents  a  yard  and  less  than  a  dollar,  will  be  imported; 
therefore,  American  cloths,  worth  more  than  fifty  cents  and  less  than 
a  dollar,  will  find  a  market.  So  of  the  intervals,  or  intermediate 
spaces,  between  the  other  statute  prices.  In  this  mode  it  may  be 
hoped  that  the  manufacturers  may  be  sustained,  and  rendered  able 
to  carry  on  the  work  of  converting  the  raw  material,  the  agricultu- 
ral product  of  the  country,  into  an  article  necessary  and  fit  for  use. 
And  this  statement,  I  think,  sufficiently  shows,  that  no  farther  bene- 
fit or  advantage  is  intended  for  them,  than  such  as  shall  barely  enable 
them  to  accomplish  that  purpose;  and  that  the  object,  to  which  all 
others  have  been  made  to  yield,  is  the  advantage  of  agriculture. 

And  yet,  sir,  it  is  on  occasion  of  a  bill  thus  framed,  that  a  loud 
and  ceaseless  cry  has  been  raised  against  what  is  called  the  cupidity, 
the  avarice,  the  monopolizing  spirit  of  New  England  manufacturers! 
This  is  one  of  the  main  u  abominations  of  the  bill;"  to  remedy  which 
it  is  proposed  to  keep  in  the  other  abominations.  Under  the  pros- 
pect of  advantage  held  out  by  the  law  of  1824,  men  have  ventured 
their  fortunes,  and  their  means  of  subsistence  for  themselves  and 
families,  in  woollen  manufactures.  They  have  ventured  investments 
in  objects  requiring  a  large  out-lay  of  capital;  in  mills,  houses,  wa- 
ter-works and  expensive  machinery.  Events  have  occurred,  blighting 
their  prospects,  and  withering  their  hopes.  Events,  which  have  de- 
prived them  of  that  degree  of  succour,  which  the  legislature  mani- 
festly intended.  They  come  here  asking  for  relief  against  an  un- 
foreseen occurrence;  for  remedy  against  that,  which  Congress,  if 
it  had  foreseen,  would  have  prevented.  And  they  are  told,  that 
what  they  ask  is  an  abomination!  They  say  that  an  interest  impor- 
tant to  them,  and  important  to  the  country,  and  principally  called 
into  existence  by  the  government  itself,  has  received  a  severe  shock, 


318 

under  which  it  must  sink,  if  the  government  will  not,  by  reasonable 
means,  endeavour  to  preserve  what  it  has  created.  And  they  are 
met  with  a  volley  of  hard  names,  a  tirade  of  reproaches,  and  a  loud 
cry  againt  capitalists,  speculators  and  stock-jobbers!  For  one,  I 
think  them  hardly  treated;  I  think,  and  from  the  beginning  have 
thought,  their  claim  to  be  a  fair  one.  With  how  much  soever  of 
undue  haste,  or  even  of  credulity,  they  may  be  thought  to  have  em- 
barked in  these  pursuits,  under  the  hopes  held  out  by  government, 
I  do  not  feel  it  to  be  just  that  they  should  be  abandoned  to  their 
fate  on  the  first  adverse  change  of  circumstances;  although  I  have 
always  seen,  and  now  see,  how  difficult,  perhaps  I  should  rather 
say  how  impossible,  it  is,  for  Congress  to  act,  when  such  changes 
occur,  in  a  manner  at  once  efficient,  but  discreet;  prompt,  but  yet 
moderate. 

For  these  general  reasons,  and  on  these  grounds,  I  am  decidedly 
in  favor  of  a  measure  which  shall  uphold  and  support,  in  behalf  of 
the  manufacturers,  the  law  of  1824,  and  carry  its  benefits  and  ad- 
vantages to  the  full  extent  intended.  And  though  I  am  not  altogeth- 
er satisfied  with  the  particular  form  of  these  enactments,  I  am  willing 
to  take  them,  in  the  belief  that  they  will  answer  an  essentially  im- 
portant and  necessary  purpose. 

It  is  now  my  painful  duty  to  take  notice  of  another  part  of  the 
bill,  which  I  think  in  the  highest  degree  objectionable  and  unreason- 
able; I  mean  the  extraordinary  augmentation  of  the  duty  on  hemp. 
I  cannot  well  conceive  anything  more  unwise  or  ill-judged  than 
this  appears  to  me  to  be.  The  duty  is  already  thirty-five  dollars 
per  ton;  and  the  bill  proposes  a  progressive  increase,  till  it  shall 
reach  sixty  dollars.  This  will  be  absolutely  oppressive  on  the  ship- 
ping interest,  the  great  consumers  of  the  article.  When  this  duty 
shall  have  reached  its  maximum,  it  will  create  an  annual  charge  of 
at  least  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  falling  not  on  the  aggregate 
of  the  commercial  interest,  but  on  the  ship  owner.  It  is  a  very 
unequal  burden.  The  navigation  of  the  country  has  already  a  hard 
struggle,  to  sustain  itself  against  foreign  competition;  and  it  is  sin- 
gular enough,  that  this  interest,  which  is  already  so  severely  tried, 
which  pays  so  much  in  duties,  on  hemp',  duck,  and  iron,  and  which 
it  is  now  proposed  to  put  under  new  burdens,  is  the  only  interest 
which  is  subject  to  a  direct  tax  by  a  law  of  Congress.  The  ton- 
nage duty  is  such  a  tax.  If  this  bill  should  pass  in  its  present  form, 
I  shall  think  it  my  duty,  at  the  earliest  suitable  opportunity,  to  bring 
forward  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  tonnage  duty.  It  amounts,  I 
think,  to  a  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  dollars  a  year;  and  its  re- 
moval will  be  due,  in  all  justice,  to  the  ship  owner,  if  he  is  to  be 
made  subject  to  a  new  taxation  on  hemp  and  iron. 

But,  objectionable  as  this  tax  is,  from  its  severe  pressure  on  a 
particular  interest,  and  that  at  present  a  depressed  interest,  there 
are  still  farther  grounds  of  dissatisfaction  with  it.  It  is  not  calcu- 
lated to  effect  the  object  intended  by  it,  If  that  object  be  the  in- 
crease of  the  sale  of  the  dew  rotted  American  hemp,  the  increased 
duty  will  have  little  tendency  to  produce  that  result;  because  such 
hemp  is  so  much  lower  in  price,  than  imported  hemp,  that  it  must 
be  already  used  for  such  purposes  as  it  is  fit  for.     It  is  said  to  be 


319 

selling  for  one  hundred  and  twenty  dollars  per  ton;  while  the  im- 
ported hemp  commands  two  hundred  and  seventy  dollars.  The 
proposed  duty,  therefore,  cannot  materially  assist  the  sale  of  Amer- 
ican hemp  of  this  quality  and  description. 

But  the  main  reason  given  for  the  increase,  is,  the  encouragement 
of  American  water-rotted  hemp.  Doubtless,  this  is  an  important 
object;  but  I  have  seen  nothing  to  satisfy  me  that  it  can  be  obtained, 
by  means  like  this.  At  present,  there  is  produced  in  the  country 
no  considerable  quantity  of  water-rotted  hemp.  It  is  problematical, 
at  best,  whether  it  can  be  produced  under  any  encouragement.  The 
hemp  may  be  grown,  doubtless,  in  various  parts  of  the  United  States, 
as  well  as  in  any  country  in  the  world;  but  the  process  of  preparing 
it  for  use,  by  water-rotting,  I  believe  to  be  more  difficult  and  labori- 
ous than  is  generally  thought  among  us.  I  incline  to  think,  that, 
happily  for  us,  labor  is  in  too  much  demand,  and  commands  too  high 
prices,  to  allow  this  process  to  be  carried  on  profitably.  Other 
objections,  also,  beside  the  amount  of  labor  required,  may,  perhaps, 
be  found  to  exist,  in  climate,  and  in  the  effects  liable  to  be  produced 
on  health,  in  warm  countries,  by  the  nature  of  the  process.  But 
whether  there  be  foundation  for  these  suggestions,  or  not,  the  fact 
still  is,  that  we  do  not  produce  the  article.  It  cannot,  at  present,  be 
had  at  any  price.  To  augment  the  duty,  therefore,  on  foreign  hemp, 
can  only  have  the  effect  of  compelling  the  consumer  to  pay  so  much 
more  money  into  the  treasury.  The  proposed  increase,  then,  is 
doubly  objectionable  ;  first,  because  it  creates  a  charge,  not  to  be 
borne  equally  by  the  whole  country,  but  a  new  and  heavy  charge, 
to  be  borne  exclusively  by  one  particular  interest  ;  and,  second, 
because,  that  of  the  money  raised  by  this  charge,  little  or  none  goes 
to  accomplish  the  professed  object,  by  aiding  the  hemp  grower; 
but  the  whole,  or  nearly  the  whole,  falls  into  the  treasury.  Thus 
the  effect  will  be  in  no  way  proportioned  to  the  cause,  nor  the 
advantage  obtained  by  some,  at  all  equal  to  the  hardship  imposed  on 
others.  While  one  interest  will  suffer  much,  the  other  interest  will 
gain  little  or  nothing. 

I  am  quite  willing  to  make  a  thorough  and  fair  experiment,  on 
the  subject  of  water-rotted  hemp;  but  I  wish,  at  the  same  time,  to 
do  this  in  a  manner  that  shall  not  oppress  individuals,  or  particular 
classes.  I  intend,  therefore,  to  move  an  amendment,  which  will  con- 
sist in  striking  out  so  much  of  the  present  bill  as  raises  the  duty  on 
hemp,  higher  than  it  is  at  present,  and  in  inserting  a  clause,  mak- 
ing it  the  duty  of  the  Navy  Department  to  purchase,  for  the  public 
service,  American  water-rotted  hemp,  whenever  it  can  be  had  of  a 
suitable  quality;  provided  it  can  be  purchased  at  a  rate  not  exceed- 
ing, by  more  than  twenty  per  cent.,  the  current  price  of  imported 
hemp,  of  the  same  quality.  If  this  amendment  should  be  adopted, 
the  ship-owner  would  have  no  reason  to  complain,  as  the  price  of  the 
article  would  not  be  enchanced,  to  him;  and  at  the  same  time,  the 
hemp  grower,  who  shall  try  the  experiment,  will  be  made  sure  of  a  cer- 
tain market,  and  a  high  price.  The  existing  duty  of  thirty-five  dol- 
lars per  ton  will  remain  to  be  still  borne  by  the  ship-owner.  The 
twenty  per  cent,  advance,  on  the  price  of  imported  hemp,  will  be  equal 


320 

to  fifty  dollars  per  ton;  the  aggregate  will  be  eighty-five  dollars; 
and  this,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  a  liberal  and  effective  provision, 
and  will  secure  everything  which  can  be  reasonably  desired,  by  the 
hemp-grower,  in  the  most  ample  manner. 

But,  if  the  bill  should  become  a  law,  and  go  into  operation  in  its 
present  shape,  this  duty  on  hemp  is  likely  to  defeat  its  own  object  in 
another  way.  Very  intelligent  persons  entertain  the  opinion,  that 
the  consequence  of  this  high  duty  will  be  such,  that  American  ves- 
sels, engaged  in  foreign  commerce,  will,  to  a  great  extent,  supply 
themselves  with  cordage  abroad.  This,  of  course,  will  diminish  the 
consumption  at  home,  and  thus  injure  the  hemp-grower,  and  at  the 
same  time,  the  manufacturer  of  cordage.  Again;  there  may  be 
reason  to  fear,  that  as  the  duty  is  not  raised  on  cordage  manufac- 
tured abroad,  such  cordage  may  be  imported,  in  greater  or  less  de- 
gree, in  the  place  of  the  unmanufactured  article.  Whatever  view 
we  take,  therefore,  of  this  hemp  duty,  it  appears  to  me  altogether 
objectionable. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  protection  which  the  navigation  of  the 
country  has  received,  from  the  discriminating  duties  on  tonnage, 
and  the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  the  coasting  trade.  In  my  opinion, 
neither  of  these  measures  has  materially  sustained  the  shipping  in- 
terest of  the  United  States.  I  do  not  concur  in  the  sentiments,  on 
that  point,  quoted  from  Dr.  Seybert's  statistical  work.  Dr.  Seybert 
was  an  intelligent  and  worthy  man,  and  compiled  a  valuable  book; 
but  he  was  engaged  in  public  life  at  a  time,  when  it  was  more  fash- 
ionable than  it  has  since  become,  to  ascribe  efficacy  to  discriminat- 
ing duties.  The  shipping  interest  in  this  country  has  made  its  way 
by  its  own  enterprise.  By  its  own  vigorous  exertion,  it  spread  itself 
over  the  seas,  and  by  the  same  exertion,  it  still  holds  its  place  there. 
It  seems  idle  to  talk  of  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  discriminating 
duties,  when  they  operate  against  us,  on  one  side  of  the  ocean, 
quite  as  much  as  they  operate  for  us  on  the  other.  To  suppose 
that  two  nations,  having  intercourse  with  each  other,  can  secure, 
each  to  itself,  a  decided  advantage  in  that  intercourse,  is  little  less 
than  absurdity;  and  this  is  the  absurdity  of  discriminating  duties. 
Still  less  reason  is  there  for  the  idea,  that  our  own  ship-owners  hold 
the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  the  coasting  trade,  only  by  virtue  of  the 
law,  which  secures  it  to  their  exclusive  employment.  Look  at  the 
rate  of  freights.  Look  at  the  manner  in  which  this  coasting  trade  is 
conducted,  by  our  own  vessels,  and  the  competition  which  subsists 
between  them.  In  a  majority  of  instances,  probably,  these  vessels 
are  owned,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  those  who  navigate  them.  These 
owners  are  at  home,  at  one  end  of  the  voyage;  and  repairs  and  sup-^ 

?lies  are  thus  obtained  in  the  cheapest  and  most  economical  manner. 
Jo  foreign  vessels  would  be  able  to  partake  in  this  trade,  even  by 
the  aid  of  preferences  and  bounties. 

The  shipping  interest  of  this  country  requires  only  an  open  field, 
and  a  fair  chance.  Everything  else  it  will  do  for  itself.  But,  it 
has  not  a  fair  chance,  while  it  is  so  severely  taxed,  in  whatever  enters 
into  the  necessary  expense  of  building  and  equipment.  In  this  re- 
spect, its  rivals  have  advantages  which  may  in  the  end  prove  to  be 


321 

decisive  against  us.  I  entreat  the  Senate  to  examine  and  weigh 
this  subject,  and  not  go  on,  blindly,  to  unknown  consequences. 
The  English  ship-owner  is  carefully  regarded  by  his  government, 
and  aided  and  succoured,  whenever  and  wherever  necessary,  by  a 
sharp-sighted  policy.  Both  he  and  the  American  ship-owner  obtain 
their  hemp  from  Russia.  But  observe  the  difference.  The  duty 
on  hemp  in  England  is  but  twenty-one  dollars;  here,  it  is  proposed 
to  make  it  sixty;  notwithstanding  its  cost  here  is  necessarily  en- 
hanced by  an  additional  freight,  proportioned  to  a  voyage,  longer 
than  that  which  brings  it  to  the  English  consumer,  by  the  whole 
breadth  of  the  Atlantic.  Sir,  I  wish  to  invoke  the  Senate's  atten- 
tion, earnestly,  to  this  subject;  I  would  awaken  the  regard  of  the 
whole  government,  more  and  more,  not  only  on  this  but  on  all  occa- 
sions, to  this  great  national  interest;  an  interest,  which  lies  at  the 
very  foundation,  both  of  our  commercial  prosperity  and  our  naval 
achievement 


41 


SPEECH 


UPON  THE  PANAMA  MISSION ;  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRE- 
SENTATIVES OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  APRIL,  1826. 

The  following  Resolution  being  under  consideration,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
upon  the  state  of  the  Union,  viz  r 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  House  it  is  expedient  to  appropriate  the  funds 
necessary  to  enable  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  send  Ministers  to  the  Congress 
of  Panama." 

Mr.  McLane,  of  Delaware,  submitted  the  following  amendment  thereto,  viz  : 

"  It  being  understood  as  the  opinion  of  this  House,  that,  as  it  has  always  been  the  settled 
policy  of  this  Government,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations  with  foreign  nations,  to 
have  with  them  as  little  political  connexion  as  possible,  to  preserve  peace,  commerce,  and 
friendship,  with  all  nations,  and  to  form  entangling  alliances  with  none ;  the  Ministers  who 
may  be  sent  shall  attend  at  the  said  Congress  in  a  diplomatic  character  merely ;  and  ought 
not  to  be  authorised  to  discuss,  consider,  or  consult,  upon  any  proposition  of  alliance,  offen- 
sive or  defensive,  between  this  country  and  any  of  the  Spanish  American  Governments,  or 
any  stipulation,  compact,  or  declaration,  binding  the  United  States  in  any  way,  or  to  any 
extent,  to  resist  interference  from  abroad,  with  the  domestic  concerns  of  the  aforesaid  Gov- 
ernments ;  or  any  measure  which  shall  commit  the  present  or  future  neutral  rights  or  duties 
of  these  United  States,  either  as  may  regard  European  nations,  or  between  the  several 
States  of  Mexico  and  South  America  :  leaving  the  United  States  free  to  adopt,  in  any  event 
which  may  happen,  affecting  the  relations  of  the  South  American  Governments,  with  each 
other,  or  with  foreign  nations,  such  measures  as  the  friendly  disposition  cherished  by  the 
American  People  towards  the  People  of  those  States,  and  the  honor  and  interest  of  this  na 
tion  may  require ;" 

To  which  Mr.RiVES  proposed  to  add,  after  the  words  "aforesaid  Governments,"  the 
following : 

"  Or  any  compact  or  engagement  by  which  the  United  States  shall  be  pledged  to  the 
Spanish  American  States,  to  maintain,  by  force,  the  principle  that  no  part  of  the  American 
continent  is  henceforward  subject  to  colonization  by  any  European  power." — 

The  preceding  motions  to  amend  being  under  consideration,  Mr.  Webster  addressed  the 
Committee  as  follows  : — 

Mr.  Chairman, — I  am  not  ambitious  of  amplifying  this  discussion. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  my  anxious  wish  to  confine  the  debate,  so  far 
as  1  partake  in  it,  to  the  real  and  material  questions  before  us. 

Our  judgment  of  things  is  liable,  doubtless,  to  be  affected  by  our 
opinions  of  men.  It  would  be  affectation  in  me,  or  in  any  one,  to 
claim  an  exemption  from  this  possibility  of  bias.  I  can  say,  howev- 
er, that  it  has  been  my  sincere  purpose  to  consider  and  discuss  the 
present  subject,  with  the  single  view  of  finding  out  what  duty  it  de 


323 

volves  upon  me,  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
If  anything  has  diverted  me  from  that  sole  aim,  it  has  been  against 
my  intention. 

I  think,  sir,  that  there  are  two  questions,  and  two  only,  for  our  de- 
cision. The  first  is,  whether  the  House  of  Representatives  will  as- 
sume the  responsibility  of  withholding  the  ordinary  appropriation, 
for  carrying  into  effect  an  Executive  measure,  which  the  Executive 
department  has  constitutionally  instituted?  The  second,  whether  if 
it  will  not  withhold  the  appropriation,  it  will  yet  take  the  responsi- 
bility of  interposing,  with  its  own  opinions,  directions  or  instructions, 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  this  particular  Executive  measure  shall 
be  conducted? 

I  am,  certainly,  in  the  negative,  on  both  these  propositions.  I  am 
neither  willing  to  refuse  the  appropriation,  nor  am  I  willing  to  limit 
or  restrain  the  discretion  of  the  Executive,  beforehand,  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  it  shall  perform  its  own  appropriate  constitutional 
duties.  And,  sir,  those  of  us  who  hold  these  opinions  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  being  on  the  common  highway  of  our  national  politics. 
We  propose  nothing  new;  we  suggest  no  change;  we  adhere  to  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  government,  as  I  understand  it,  from  its  ori- 
gin. It  is  for  those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  are  in  favor  of  either, 
or  both,  of  the  propositions,  to  show  us  the  cogent  reasons  which 
recommend  their  adoption.  The  duty  is  on  them,  to  satisfy  the 
House  and  the  country  that  there  is  something  in  the  present  occa- 
sion which  calls  for  such  an  extraordinary  and  unprecedented  in 
terference. 

The  President  and  Senate  have  instituted  a  public  mission,  for 
the  purpose  of  treating  with  foreign  States.  The  Constitution  gives 
to  the  President  the  power  of  appointing,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Senate,  Embassadors,  and  other  public  ministers.  Such  appoint- 
ment is,  therefore,  a  clear  and  unquestionable  exercise  of  Executive 
power.  It  is,  indeed,  less  connected  with  the  appropriate  duties  of 
this  House,  than  almost  any  other  Executive  act;  because  the  of- 
fice of  a  public  minister  is  not  created  by  any  statute  or  law  of  our 
own  government.  It  exists  under  the  law  of  nations,  and  is  recog- 
nised as  existing  by  our  Constitution.  The  acts  of  Congress,  in- 
deed, limit  the  salaries  of  public  ministers;  but  they  do  no  more. 
Everything  else,  in  regard  to  the  appointment  of  public  ministers, 
their  numbers,  the  time  of  their  appointment,  and  the  negotiations 
contemplated  in  such  appointments,  is  matter  for  Executive  discre- 
tion. Every  new  appointment  to  supply  vacancies  in  existing  mis- 
sions, is  under  the  same  authority.  There  are,  indeed,  what  we 
commonly  term  standing  missions,  so  known  in  the  practice  of  the 
government,  but  they  are  not  made  permanent  by  any  law.  All 
missions  rest  on  the  same  ground.  Now  the  question  is,  whether 
the  President  and  Senate,  having  created  this  mission,  or,  in  other 
words,  having  appointed  the  ministers,  in  the  exercise  of  their  un- 
doubted constitutional  power,  this  House  will  take  upon  itself  the 
responsibility  of  defeating  its  objects,  and  rendering  this  exercise 
of  Executive  power  void? 

By  voting  the  salaries,  in  the  ordinary  way,  we  assume,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  no  responsibility  whatever.     We   merely  empower 


324 

another  branch  of  the  government  to  discharge  its  own  appropriate 
duties,  in  that  mode  which  seems  to  itself  most  conducive  to  the 
public  interests.  We  are,  by  so  voting,  no  more  responsible  for 
the  manner  in  which  the  negotiation  shall  be  conducted,  than  we 
are  for  the  manner  in  which  one  of  the  Heads  of  Department  may 
discharge  the  duties  of  his  office. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  withhold  the  ordinary  means,  we  do  in- 
cur a  heavy  responsibility.  We  interfere,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to 
prevent  the  action  of  the  Government,  according  to  constitutional 
forms  and  provisions.  It  ought  constantly  to  be  remembered  that 
our  whole  power,  in  the  case,  is  merely  incidental.  It  is  only  be- 
cause public  ministers  must  have  salaries,  like  other  officers,  and 
because  no  salaries  can  be  paid,  but  by  our  vote,  that  the  subject  is 
referred  to  us  at  all.  The  Constitution  vests  the  power  of  appoint- 
ment in  the  President  and  Senate;  the  law  gives  to  the  President 
even  the  power  of  fixing  the  amount  of  salary,  within  certain  limits; 
and  the  only  question,  here,  is  upon  the  appropriation.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  we  have  the  power,  if  we  see  fit  to  exercise  it,  to 
break  up  the  mission,  by  withholding  the  salaries;  we  have  power 
also  to  break  up  the  Court,  by  withholding  the  salaries  of  the 
Judges,  or  to  break  up  the  office  of  President,  by  withholding  the 
salary  provided  for  it  by  law.  All  these  things,  it  is  true,  we  have 
the  power  to  do,  since  we  hold  the  keys  of  the  Treasury.  But, 
then,  can  we  rightfully  exercise  this  power?  The  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  Buchanan,)  with  whom  I  have  great  pleasure 
in  concurring  on  this  part  of  the  case,  while  I  regret  that  I  differ 
with  him  on  others,  has  placed  this  question  in  a  point  of  view 
which  cannot  be  improved.  These  officers  do,  indeed,  already  ex- 
ist. They  are  public  ministers.  If  they  were  to  negotiate  a  trea- 
ty, and  the  Senate  should  ratify  it,  it  would  become  a  law  of  the 
land,  whether  we  voted  their  salaries  or  not.  This  shows  that  the 
Constitution  never  contemplated  that  the  House  of  Representatives 
should  act  a  part  in  originating  negotiations,  or  concluding  treaties. 

I  know,  sir,  it  is  a  useless  labor  to  discuss  the  kind  of  power  which 
this  House  incidentally  holds  in  these  cases.  Men  will  differ  in  that 
particular;  and  as  the  forms  of  public  business  and  of  the  Constitu- 
tion are  such,  that  the  power  may  be  exercised  by  this  House,  there 
will  always  be  some,  or  always  may  be  some,  who  feel  inclined  to 
exercise  it.  For  myself,  I  feel  bound  not  to  step  out  of  my  own 
sphere,  and  neither  to  exercise  nor  control  any  authority,  of  which 
the  Constitution  has  intended  to  lodge  the  free  and  unrestrained  ex- 
ercise in  other  hands.  Cases  of  extreme  necessity,  in  which  a  re- 
gard to  public  safety  is  to  be  the  supreme  law,  or  rather  to  take  place 
of  all  law,  must  be  allowed  to  provide  for  themselves,  when  they 
arise.  Reasoning  from  such  possible  cases,  will  shed  no  light  on  the 
general  path  of  our  constitutional  duty. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  a  habitual  and  very  sincere  respect  for  the 
opinions  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware.  And  I  can  say  with  truth, 
that  he  is  the  last  man  in  the  House  from  whom  I  should  have  look- 
ed for  this  proposition  of  amendment,  or  from  whom  I  should  have 
expected  to  hear  some  of  the  reasons  which  he  has  given  in  its  sup- 
port.    He  says,  that,  in  this  matter,  the  soifrce  from  which  the  mea- 


325 

sure  springs  should  have  no  influence  with  us  whatever.  I  do  not 
comprehend  this;  and  I  cannot  but  think  the  honorable  gentleman 
has  been  surprised  into  an  expression  which  does  not  convey  his 
meaning.  This  measure  comes  from  the  Executive,  and  it  is  an  ap- 
propriate exercise  of  Executive  Power.  How  is  it,  then,  that  we 
are  to  consider  it  as  entirely  an  open  question  for  us;  as  if  it  were  a 
legislative  measure  originating  with  ourselves  ?  In  deciding  whether 
we  will  enable  the  Executive  to  exercise  his  own  duties,  are  we  to 
consider  whether  we  should  have  exercised  them  in  the  same  way 
ourselves?  And  if  we  differ  in  opinion  with  the  President  and  Sen- 
ate, are  we  on  that  account  to  refuse  the  ordinary  means?  I  think 
not;  unless  we  mean  to  say  that  we  will  exercise  ourselves,  all  the 
powers  of  the  Government. 

But  the  gentleman  argues,  that  although,  generally,  such  a  course 
would  not  be  proper,  yet,  in  the  present  case,  the  President  has  es- 
pecially referred  the  matter  to  our  opinion;  that  he  has  thrown  off, 
or  attempted  to  throw  off,  his  own  constitutional  responsibility;  or,  at 
least,  that  he  proposes  to  divide  it  with  us;  that  he  requests  our  ad- 
vice, and  that  we,  having  referred  that  request  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs,  have  now  received  from  that  Committee  their  Re- 
port thereon. 

Sir,  this  appears  to  me  a  very  mistaken  view  of  the  subject;  but 
if  it  were  all  so — if  our  advice  and  opinion  had  thus  been  asked,  it 
would  not  alter  the  line  of  our  duty.  We  cannot  take,  though  it 
were  offered,  any  share  in  Executive  duty.  We  cannot  divide  their 
own  proper  responsibility  with  other  branches  of  the  Government. 
The  President  cannot  properly  ask,  and  we  cannot  properly  give,  our 
advice,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  shall  discharge  his  duties.  He 
cannot  shift  the  responsibility  from  himself;  and  we  cannot  assume 
it.  Such  a  course,  sir,  would  confound  all  that  is  distinct  in  the  con- 
stitutional assignment  of  our  respective  functions.  It  would  break 
down  all  known  divisions  of  power,  and  put  an  end  to  all  just  respon- 
sibility. If  the  President  were  to  receive  directions  or  advice  from 
us,  in  things  pertaining  to  the  duties  of  his  own  office,  what  becomes 
of  his  responsibility  to  us,  and  to  the  Senate  ?  We  hold  the  impeach- 
ing power.  We  are  to  bring  him  to  trial  in  any  case  of  maladmin- 
istration. The  Senate  are  to  judge  him  by  the  Constitution  and  laws ; 
and  it  would  be  singular,  indeed,  if,  when  such  occasion  should 
arise,  the  party  accused  should  have  the  means  of  sheltering  himself 
under  the  advice  or  opinions  of  his  accusers.  Nothing  can  be  more 
incorrect,  or  more  dangerous,  than  this  pledging  the  House  before- 
hand, to  any  opinion,  as  to  the  manner  of  discharging  Executive 
duties. 

But,  sir,  I  see  no  evidence  whatever,  that  the  President  has  ask- 
ed us  to  take  this  measure  upon  ourselves,  or  to  divide  the  respon- 
sibility of  it  with  him.  I  see  no  such  invitation  or  request.  The 
Senate  having  concurred  in  the  mission,  the  President  has  sent  a 
message,  requesting  the  appropriation,  in  the  usual  and  common 
form.  Another  message  is  sent,  in  answer  to  a  call  of  the  House, 
communicating  the  correspondence,  and  setting  forth  the  objects  of 
the  mission.  It  is  contended,  that  by  this  message  he  asks  our  ad- 
vice, or  refers  the  subject  to  our  opinion.     I  do  not  so  understand  it. 

DD 


326 

Our  concurrence,  he  says,  by  making  the  appropriation,  is  subject 
to  our  free  determination.  Doubtless  it  is  so.  If  we  determine  at 
all,  we  shall  determine  freely;  and  the  message  does  no  more  than 
leave  to  ourselves  to  decide  how  far  we  feel  ourselves  bound,  either 
to  support  or  to  thwart  the  Executive  Department,  in  the  exercise 
of  its  duties.  There  is  no  message,  no  document,  no  communication 
to  us,  which  asks  for  our  concurrence,  otherwise  than  as  we  shall 
manifest  it  by  making  the  appropriation. 

Undoubtedly,  sir,  the  President  would  be  glad  to  know  that  the 
measure  met  the  approbation  of  the  House.  He  must  be  aware, 
unquestionably,  that  all  leading  measures  mainly  depend  for  success 
on  the  support  of  Congress.  Still,  there  is  no  evidence  that  on  this 
occasion  he  has  sought  to  throw  off  responsibility  from  himself,  or 
that  he  desires  us  to  be  answerable  for  anything  beyond  the  discharge 
of  our  own  constitutional  duties.  I  have  already  said,  sir,  that  I 
know  of  no  precedent  for  such  a  proceeding  as  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware.  None  which  I  think  anal- 
ogous has  been  cited.  The  resolution  of  the  House,  some  years 
ago,  on  the  subject  of  the  slave-trade,  is  a  precedent  the  other  way. 
A  committee  had  reported  that,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the  slave- 
trade,  a  mutual  right  of  search  might  be  admitted  and  arranged  by 
negotiation.  But  this  opinion  was  not  incorporated,  as  the  gentleman 
now  proposes  to  incorporate  his  amendment,  into  the  resolution  of 
the  House.  The  resolution  only  declared,  in  general  terms,  that  the 
President  be  requested  to  enter  upon  such  negotiations  with  other 
powers  as  he  might  deem  expedient,  for  the  effectual  abolition  of  the 
African  slave-trade.  It  is  singular  enough,  and  may  serve  as  an 
admonition  on  the  present  occasion,  that  a  negotiation  having  been 
concluded,  in  conformity  to  the  opinions  expressed,  not,  indeed,  by 
the  House,  but  by  the  committee,  the  treaty,  when  laid  before  the 
Senate,  was  rejected  by  that  body. 

The  gentleman  from  Delaware  himself  says,  that  the  Constitution- 
al responsibility  pertains  alone  to  the  Executive  Department:  and 
that  none  other  has  to  do  with  it,  as  a  public  measure.  These  ad- 
missions seem  to  me  to  conclude  the  question;  because,  in  the  first 
place,  if  the  Constitutional  responsibility  appertains  alone  to  the 
President,  he  cannot  devolve  it  on  us,  if  he  would;  and  because,  in 
the  second  place,  I  see  no  proof  of  any  intention,  on  his  part,  so  to 
devolve  it  on  us,  even  if  he  had  the  power. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  here  take  occasion,  in  order  to  prevent  mis- 
apprehension, to  observe,  that  no  one  is  more  convinced  than  I  am, 
that  it  is  the  right  of  this  House,  and  often  its  duty,  to  express  its 
general  opinion  in  regard  to  questions  of  foreign  policy.  Nothing, 
certainly,  is  more  proper.  I  have  concurred  in  such  proceedings, 
and  am  ready  to  do  so  again.  On  those  great  subjects,  for  instance, 
which  form  the  leading  topics  in  this  discussion,  it  is  not  only  the 
right  of  the  House  to  express  its  opinions,  but  I  think  it  its  duty  to 
do  so,  if  it  should  think  the  Executive  to  be  pursuing  a  general 
course  of  policy  which  the  House  itself  will  not  ultimately  approve 
But  that  is  something  entirely  different  from  the  present  suggestion. 
Here  it  is  proposed  to  decide,  by  our  vote,  what  shall  be  discussed 
by  particular  ministers,  already  appointed,  when  they  shall  meet  the 


327 

ministers  of  the  other  powers.  This  is  not  a  general  expression  of 
opinion.  It  is  a  particular  direction,  or  a  special  instruction.  Its 
operation  is  limited  to  the  conduct  of  particular  men,  on  a  particular 
occasion.  Such  a  thing,  sir,  is  wholly  unprecedented  in  our  history. 
When  the  House  proceeds,  in  the  accustomed  way,  by  general  reso- 
lution, its  sentiments  apply,  as  far  as  expressed,  to  all  public  agents, 
and  on  all  occasions.  They  apply  to  the  whole  course  of  policy, 
and  must,  necessarily,  be  felt  everywhere.  But  if  we  proceed  by 
way  of  direction  to  particular  ministers,  we  must  direct  them  all. 
In  short,  we  must  ourselves  furnish,  in  all  cases,  diplomatic  instruc- 
tions. 

We  now  propose  to  prescribe  what  our  ministers  shall  discuss,  and 
what  they  shall  not  discuss,  at  Panama.  But  there  is  no  subject 
coming  up  for  discussion  at  Panama,  which  might  not  also  be  pro- 
posed for  discussion  either  here  or  at  Mexico,  or  in  the  Capital  of 
Colombia.  If  we  direct  what  our  ministers  at  Panama  shall  or 
shall  not  say  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Monroe's  declaration,  for  exam- 
ple, why  should  we  not  proceed  to  say  also  what  our  other  ministers 
abroad,  or  our  Secretary  at  home,  shall  say  on  the  same  subject? 
There  is  precisely  the  same  reason  for  one,  as  for  the  other.  The 
course  of  the  House,  hitherto,  sir,  has  not  been  such.  It  has  ex- 
pressed its  opinions,  when  it  deemed  proper  to  express  them  at  all, 
en  great,  leading  questions,  by  resolution,  and  in  a  general  form. 
These  general  opinions,  being  thus  made  known,  have  doubtless 
always  had,  and  such  expressions  of  opinion  doubtless  always  will 
have,  their  effect. — This  is  the  practice  of  the  Government.  It  is  a 
salutary  practice;  but  if  we  carry  it  farther,  or  rather  if  we  adopt  a 
very  different  practice,  and  undertake  to  prescribe  to  our  public 
ministers  what  they  shall  discuss,  and  what  they  shall  not  discuss, 
we  take  upon  ourselves  that  which,  in  my  judgment,  does  not  at  all 
belong  to  us.  I  see  no  more  propriety  in  our  deciding  now,  in  what 
manner  these  ministers  shall  discharge  their  duty,  than  there  would 
have  in  our  prescribing  to  the  President  and  Senate  what  persons 
ought  to  have  been  appointed  ministers. 

An  honorable  member  from  Virginia,  who  spoke  some  days  ago, 
(Mr.  Rives,)  seems  to  go  still  farther  than  the  member  from  Dela- 
ware. He  maintains,  that  we  may  distinguish  between  the  various 
objects  contemplated  by  the  Executive  in  the  proposed  negotiation; 
and  adopt  some  and  reject  others.  And  this  high,  delicate,  and  impor- 
tant trust,  the  gentleman  deduces  simply  from  our  power  to  withhold 
the  minister's  salaries.  The  process  of  the  gentleman's  argument 
appears  to  me  as  singular  as  its  conclusion.  He  founds  himself  on 
the  legal  maxim,  that  he  who  has  the  power  to  give,  may  annex 
whatever  condition  or  qualification  to  the  gift  he  chooses.  This 
maxim,  sir,  would  be  applicable  to  the  present  case,  if  we  were  the 
sovereigns  of  the  country;  if  all  power  were  in  our  hands;  if  the 
public  money  were  entirely  our  own;  if  our  appropriation  of  it  were 
mere  grace  and  favor;  and  if  there  were  no  restraints  upon  us,  but 
our  own  sovereign  will  and  pleasure.  But  the  argument  totally 
forgets  that  we  are  ourselves  but  public  agents;  that  our  power  over 
the  Treasury  is  but  that  of  stewards  over  a  trust  fund;  that  we  have 
nothing  to  give,  and  therefore  no  gifts  to  limit,  or  qualify;  that  it  is 


328 

as  much  our  duty  to  appropriate  to  proper  objects,  as  to  withhold 
appropriations  from  such  as  are  improper;  and  that  it  is  as  much, 
and  as  clearly,  our  duty  to  appropriate  in  a  proper  and  Constitu- 
tional manner,  as  to  appropriate  at  all. 

The  same  honorable  member  advanced  another  idea,  in  which  I 
cannot  concur.  He  does  not  admit  that  confidence  is  to  be  reposed 
in  the  Executive,  on  the  present  occasion,  because  confidence,  he 
argues,  implies  only,  that  not  knowing  ourselves  what  will  be  done 
in  a  given  case  by  others,  we  trust  to  those  who  are  to  act  in  it, 
that  they  will  act  right;  and  as  we  know  the  course  likely  to  be 
pursued  in  regard  to  this  subject,  by  the  Executive,  confidence  can 
have  no  place.  This  seems  a  singular  notion  of  confidence;  cer- 
tainly is  not  my  notion  of  that  confidence  which  the  Constitution 
requires  one  branch  of  the  Government  to  repose  in  another.  The 
President  is  not  our  agent,  but  like  ourselves,  the  agent  of  the 
People.  They  have  trusted  to  his  hands  the  proper  duties  of  his 
office:  and  we  are  not  to  take  those  duties  out  of  his  hands,  from 
any  opinion  of  our  own  that  we  should  execute  them  better  our- 
selves. The  confidence  which  is  due  from  us  to  the  Executive,  and 
from  the  Executive  to  us,  is  not  personal,  but  official  and  Constitu- 
tional. It  has  nothing  to  do  with  individual  likings  or  dislikings; 
but  results  from  that  division  of  power  among  departments,  and 
those  limitations  on  the  authority  of  each,  which  belong  to  the  na- 
ture and  frame  of  our  government. 

It  would  be  unfortunate,  indeed,  if  our  line  of  Constitutional  ac- 
tion were  to  vibrate,  backward  and  forward,  according  to  our  opin- 
ions of  persons,  swerving  this  way  to  day,  from  undue  attachment, 
and  the  other  way  to-morrow,  from  distrust  or  dislike.  This  may 
sometimes  happen  from  the  weakness  of  our  virtues,  or  the  excite- 
ment of  our  passions;  but  I  trust  it  will  not  be  coolly  recommended 
to  us,  as  the  rightful  course  of  public  conduct. 

It  is  obvious  to  remark,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  Senate  have  not 
undertaken  to  give  directions  or  instructions  in  this  case.  That 
body  is  closely  connected  with  the  President  in  Executive  measures. 
Its  consent  to  these  very  appointments  is  made  absolutely  necessary 
by  the  Constitution;  yet  It  has  not  seen  fit,  in  this  or  any  other  case, 
to  take  upon  itself  the  responsibility  of  directing  the  mode  in  which 
the  negotiations  should  be  conducted. 

For  these  reasons,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  for  giving  no  instructions, 
advice,  or  directions,  in  the  case.  I  prefer  leaving  it  where,  in  my 
judgment,  the  Constitution  has  left  it — to  Executive  discretion  and 
Executive  responsibility. 

But,  sir,  I  think  there  are  other  objections  to  the  amendment. 
There  are  parts  of  it  which  I  could  not  agree  to,  if  it  were  proper 
to  attach  any  such  condition  to  our  vote.  As  to  all  that  part  of  the 
amendment,  indeed,  which  asserts  the  neutral  policy  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  inexpediency  of  forming  alliances,  no  man  assents 
to  those  sentiments  more  readily,  or  more  sincerely,  than  myself. 
On  these  points,  we  are  all  agreed.  Such  is  our  opinion;  such, 
the  President  assures  us,  in  terms,  is  his  opinion;  such  we  know  to 
be  the  opinion  of  the  country.  If  it  be  thought  necessary  to  affirm 
opinions  which  no  one  either  denies  or  doubts,  by  a  resolution  of 


329 

the  House,  I  shall  cheerfully  concur  in  it.  But  there  is  one  part 
of  the  proposed  amendment  to  which  I  could  not  agree,  in  any  form. 
I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  himself  to  reconsider 
it.  I  pray  him  to  look  at  it  again,  and  to  see  whether  he  means 
what  it  expresses  or  implies;  for,  on  this  occasion,  I  should  be  more 
gratified  by  seeing  that  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  had  be- 
come sensible  that  he  had  fallen  into  some  error,  in  this  respect, 
than  by  seeing  the  vote  of  the  House  against  him  by  any  majority 
whatever. 

That  part  of  the  amendment  to  which  I  now  object,  is  that  which 
requires,  as  a  condition  of  the  resolution  before  us,  that  the  ministers 
"  shall  not  be  authorised  to  discuss,  consider,  or  consult  upon  any 
measure  which  shall  commit  the  present  or  future  neutral  rights  or 
duties  of  these  United  States,  either  as  may  regard  European  na- 
tions, or  between  the  several  States  of  Mexico  and  South  America." 

I  need  hardly  repeat,  that  this  amounts  to  a  precise  instruction. 
It  being  understood  that  the  ministers  shall  not  be  authorised  to 
discuss  particular  subjects,  is  a  mode  of  speech  precisely  equivalent 
to  saying,  provided  the  ministers  be  instructed,  or  the  ministers  be- 
ing instructed,  not  to  discuss  those  subjects.  After  all  that  has 
been  said,  or  can  be  said,  about  this  amendment  being  no  more  than 
a  general  expression  of  opinion,  or  abstract  proposition,  this  part 
of  it  is  an  exact  and  definite  instruction.  It  prescribes  to  public 
ministers  the  precise  manner  in  which  they  are  to  conduct  a  public 
negotiation;  a  duty  manifestly  and  exclusively  belonging,  in  my 
judgment,  to  the  Executive,  and  not  to  us. 

But  if  we  possessed  the  power  to  give  instructions,  this  instruc- 
tion would  not  be  proper  to  be  given.  Let  us  examine  it.  The 
ministers  shall  not  "  discuss,  consider,  or  consult,"  &c. 

Now,  sir,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  they  are  not 
only  not  to  agree  to  any  such  measure,  but  they  are  not  to  discuss 
it.  If  proposed  to  them,  they  are  not  to  give  reasons  for  declining 
it.  Indeed  they  cannot  reject  it;  they  can  only  say  they  are  not 
authorised  to  consider  it.  Would  it-  not  be  better,  sir,  to  leave  these 
agents  at  liberty  to  explain  the  policy  of  our  Government,  fully  and 
clearly,  and  to  show  the  reasons  which  induce  us  to  abstain,  as  far 
as  possible,  from  foreign  connexions,  and  to  act,  in  all  things,  with 
a  scrupulous  regard  to  the  duties  of  neutrality? 

But  again:  they  are  to  discuss  no  measure  which  may  commit 
our  neutral  rights  or  duties.  To  commit  is  somewhat  indefinite. 
May  they  not  modify  nor  in  any  degree  alter  our  neutral  rights 
and  duties?  If  not,  I  hardly  know  whether  a  common  treaty  of 
commerce  could  be  negotiated;  because  all  such  treaties  affect 
or  modify,  more  or  less,  the  neutral  rights  or  duties  of  the  parties; 
especially  all  such  treaties  as  our  habitual  policy  leads  us  to  form. 
But  I  suppose  the  author  of  the  amendment  uses  the  word  in  a 
larger  and  higher  sense.  He  means  that  the  ministers  shall  not 
discuss  or  consider  any  measure  which  may  have  a  tendency,  in  any 
degree,  to  place  us  in  a  hostile  attitude  towards  any  foreign  State. 
And  here,  again,  one  cannot  help  repeating,  that  the  injunction  is, 
not  to  propose  or  assent  to  any  such  measure,  but  not  to  consider  it, 
not  to  answer  it,  if  proposed;  not  to  resist  it  with  reasons? 
42  dd* 


330 

But,  if  this  objection  were  removed,  still  the  instruction  could 
not  properly  be  given.  What  important  or  leading  measure  is  there, 
connected  with  our  foreign  relations,  which  can  be  adopted,  without 
the  possibility  of  committing  us  to  the  necessity  of  a  hostile  attitude  ? 
Any  assertion  of  our  plainest  rights  may,  by  possibility,  have  that 
effect.  The  author  of  the  amendment  seems  to  suppose  that  our 
pacific  relations  can  never  be  changed,  but  by  our  own  option.  He 
seems  not  to  be  aware  that  other  states  may  compel  us,  in  defence 
of  our  own  rights,  to  measures,  which,  in  their  ultimate  tendency, 
may  commit  our  neutrality.  Let  me  ask,  if  the  ministers  of  other 
powers,  at  Panama,  should  signify  to  our  agents  that  it  was  in  con- 
templation immediately  to  take  some  measure  which  these  agents 
know  to  be  hostile  to  our  policy,  adverse  to  our  rights,  and  such  as 
we  could  not  submit  to — should  they  be  left  free  to  speak  the  senti- 
ments of  their  Government,  to  protest  against  the  measure,  and  to 
declare  that  the  United  States  would  not  see  it  carried  into  effect? 
Or  should  they,  as  this  amendment  proposes,  be  enjoined  silence, 
let  the  measure  proceed,  and  afterwards,  when,  perhaps,  we  go  to 
war  to  redress  the  evil,  we  may  learn  that  if  our  objections  had  been 
fairly  and  frankly  stated,  the  step  would  not  have  been  taken? 
Look,  sir,  to  the  very  case  of  Cuba— the  most  delicate,  and  vastly 
the  most  important  point  in  all  our  foreign  relations.  Do  gentle- 
men think  they  exhibit  skill  or  statesmanship,  in  laying  such  re- 
straints as  they  propose  on  our  ministers,  in  regard  to  this  subject, 
among  others?  It  has  been  made  matter  of  complaint,  that  the 
Executive  has  not  used,  already,  a  more  decisive  tone  towards 
Mexico  and  Colombia,  in  regard  to  their  designs  on  this  Island. 
Pray,  sir,  what  tone  could  be  taken,  under  these  instructions?  Not 
one  word — not  one  single  word  could  be  said  on  the  subject.  If 
asked  whether  the  United  States  would  consent  to  the  occupation 
of  that  Island  by  those  republics,  or  to  its  transfer  by  Spain  to  a 
European  power;  or  whether  we  should  resist  such  occupation  or 
such  transfer,  what  could  they  say?  "  That  is  a  matter  we  cannot 
discuss,  and  cannot  consider — it  would  commit  our  neutral  relations 
— we  are  not  at  liberty  to  express  the  sentiments  of  our  Government 
on  the  subject:  we  have  nothing  at  all  to  say."  Is  this,  sir,  what 
gentlemen  wish,  or  what  they  would  recommend? 

If,  sir,  we  give  these  instructions,  and  they  should  be  obeyed,  and 
inconvenience  or  evil  result,  who  is  answerable  ?  And  I  suppose  it 
is  expected  they  will  be  obeyed.  Certainly  it  cannot  be  intended  to 
give  them,  and  not  to  take  the  responsibility  of  consequences,  if  they 
be  followed.  It  cannot  be  intended  to  hold  the  President  answer- 
able both  ways;  first,  to  obey  our  instructions,  and,  secondly,  for 
having  obeyed  them,  if  evil  comes  from  obeying  them. 

Sir,  events  may  change.  If  we  had  the  power  to  give  instruc- 
tions, and  if  these  proposed  instructions  were  proper  to  be  given, 
before  we  arrive  at  our  own  homes,  affairs  may  take  a  new  direction, 
and  the  public  interest  require  new  and  corresponding  orders  to  our 
agents  abroad. 

This  is  said  to  be  an  extraordinary  case,  and,  on  that  account,  to 
justify  our  interference.  If  the  fact  were  true,  the  consequence 
would  not  follow.     If  it  be  the  exercise  of  a  power  assigned  by  the 


331 

Constitution  to  the  Executive,  it  can  make  no  difference  whether 
the  occasion  be  common  or  uncommon.  But,  in  truth,  there  have 
been  much  stronger  cases  for  the  interference  of  the  House,  where, 
nevertheless,  the  House  has  not  interfered.  For  example;  in  the 
negotiations  for  peace  carried  on  at  Ghent.  In  that  case,  Congress, 
by  both  Houses,  had  declared  war,  for  certain  alleged  causes.  Af- 
ter the  war  had  lasted  some  years,  the  President,  with  the  advice  of 
the  Senate,  appointed  ministers  to  treat  of  peace;  and  he  gave  them 
such  instructions  as  he  saw  fit.  Now,  as  the  war  was  declared  by 
Congress,  and  was  waged  to  obtain  certain  ends,  it  would  have  been 
plausible  to  say  that  Congress  ought  to  know  the  instructions  under 
which  peace  was  to  be  negotiated,  that  they  might  see  whether  the 
objects  for  which  the  war  was  declared,  had  been  abandoned.  Yet 
no  such  claim  was  set  up.  The  President  gave  instructions,  such 
as  his  judgment  dictated,  and  neither  House  asserted  any  right  of 
interference. 

Sir,  there  are  gentlemen  in  this  House,  opposed  to  this  mission, 
who,  I  hope,  will  nevertheless  consider  this  question  of  amendment 
on  genera)  Constitutional  grounds.  They  are  gentlemen  of  much 
estimation  in  the  community,  likely,  I  hope,  long  to  continue  in  the 
public  service;  and,  I  trust,  they  will  well  reflect  on  the  effect  of 
this  amendment  on  the  separate  powers  and  duties  of  the  several  de- 
partments of  the  government. 

An  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  Hemphill,)  has 
alluded  to  a  resolution  introduced  by  me  the  session  before  the  last. 
I  should  not  have  referred  to  it  myself,  had  he  not  invited  the  refer- 
ence; but  I  am  happy  in  the  opportunity  of  showing  how  that  reso- 
lution coincides  with  everything  which  I  say  to  day  What  was  that 
resolution?  When  an  interesting  people  were  struggling  for  na- 
tional existence  against  a  barbarous  despotism,  when  there  were 
good  hopes,  (hopes,  yet,  I  trust,  to  be  fully  realized,)  of  their  suc- 
cess, and  when  the  Holy  Alliance  had  pronounced  against  them  cer- 
tain false  and  abominable  doctrines,  I  moved  the  House  to  resolve 
— what  ?  Simply,  that  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  to  defray 
the  expense  of  an  agent  or  commissioner  to  that  country,  whenever 
the  President  should  deem  it  expedient  to  make  such  appointment. 
Did  I  propose  any  instruction  to  the  President,  or  any  limit  on  his 
discretion?  None  at  all,  sir;  none  at  all.  What  resemblance  then 
can  be  found  between  that  resolution  and  this  amendment?  Let 
those  who  think  any  such  resemblance  exists,  adopt,  if  they  will,  the 
words  of  the  resolution,  as  a  substitute  for  this  amendment.  We 
shall  gladly  take  them. 

I  am,  therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  against  the  amendment;  not  only 
as  not  being  a  proper  manner  of  exercising  any  power  belonging  to 
this  House;  but  also  as  not  containing  instructions  fit  to  be  given,  if 
we  possessed  the  power  of  giving  them.  And  as  my  vote  will  rest 
on  these  grounds,  I  might  terminate  my  remarks  here:  but  the  dis- 
cussion has  extended  over  a  broader  surface,  and  following  where 
others  have  led,  I  will  ask  your  indulgence  to  a  few  observations  on 
the  more  general  topics  of  the  debate. 

Mr.  Chairman:  it  is  our  fortune  to  be  called  upon  to  act  our  part, 
as  public  men,  at  a  most  interesting  era  in  human  affairs.     The 


332 

short  period  of  your  life,  and  of  mine,  has  been  thick  and  crowded 
with  the  most  important  events.  Not  only  new  interests  and  new 
relations  have  sprung  up  among  States,  but  new  societies,  new  na- 
tions, and  families  of  nations,  have  risen  to  take  their  places,  and 
perform  their  parts,  in  the  order  and  the  intercourse  of  the  world. 
Every  man,  aspiring  to  the  character  of  a  statesman,  must  endeavour 
to  enlarge  his  views  to  meet  this  new  state  of  things.  He  must  aim 
at  adequate  comprehension,  and  instead  of  being  satisfied  with  that 
narrow  political  sagacity,  which,  like  the  power  of  minute  vision, 
sees  small  things  accurately,  but  can  see  nothing  else,  he  must  look 
to  the  far  horizon,  and  embrace,  in  his  broad  survey,  whatever  the 
series  of  recent  events  has  brought  into  connexion,  near  or  remote, 
with  the  country  whose  interests  he  studies  to  serve.  We  have  seen 
eight  States,  formed  out  of  colonies  on  our  own  continent,  assume 
the  rank  of  nations. 

This  is  a  mighty  revolution,  and  when  we  consider  what  an  extent 
of  the  surface  of  the  globe  they  cover;  through  what  climates  they 
extend;  what  population  they  contain,  and  what  new  impulses  they 
must  derive  from  this  change  of  government,  we  cannot  but  perceive 
that  great  effects  are  likely  to  be  produced  on  the  intercourse,  and 
the  interests  of  the  civilized  world.  Indeed,  it  has  been  forcibly 
said,  by  the  intelligent  and  distinguished  statesman  who  conducts 
the  foreign  relations  of  England,  that  when  we  now  speak  of  Eu- 
rope and  the  world,  we  mean  Europe  and  America;  and  that  the 
different  systems  of  these  two  portions  of  the  globe,  and  their  seve- 
ral and  various  interests,  must  be  thoroughly  studied  and  nicely 
balanced  by  the  statesmen  of  the  times. 

In  many  respects,  sir,  the  European  and  the  American  nations  are 
alike.  They  are  alike  Christian  States,  civilized  States,  and  com- 
mercial States.  They  have  access  to  the  same  common  fountains 
of  intelligence;  they  all  draw  from  those  sources  which  belong  to 
the  whole  civilized  world.  In  knowledge  and  letters — in  the  arts  of 
peace  and  war,  they  differ  in  degrees;  but  they  bear,  nevertheless, 
a  general  resemblance.  On  the  other  hand,  in  matters  of  govern- 
ment and  social  institution,  the  nations  on  this  continent  are  founded 
upon  principles  which  never  did  prevail,  in  considerable  extent, 
either  at  any  other  time,  or  in  any  other  place.  There  has  never  been 
presented  to  the  mind  of  man  a  more  interesting  subject  of  contem- 
plation than  the  establishment  of  so  many  nations  in  America,  par- 
taking in  the  civilisation  and  in  the  arts  of  the  old  world,  but  having 
left  behind  them  those  cumbrous  institutions  which  had  their  origin 
in  a  dark  and  military  age.  Whatsoever  European  experience  has 
developed  favorable  to  the  freedom  and  the  happiness  of  man;  what- 
soever European  genius  has  invented  for  his  improvement  or  grati- 
fication; whatsoever  of  refinement  or  polish  the  culture  of  European 
society  presents  for  his  adoption  and  enjoyment — all  this  is  offered  to 
man  in  America,  with  the  additional  advantages  of  the  full  power  of 
erecting  forms  of  government  on  free  and  simple  principles,  without 
overturning  institutions  suited  to  times  long  passed,  but  too  strongly 
supported,  either  by  interests  or  prejudices,  to  be  shaken  without 
convulsions.  This  unprecedented  state  of  things  presents  the  hap- 
piest of  all  occasions  for  an  attempt  to  establish  national  intercourse 


333 

upon  improved  principles;  upon  principles  tending  to  peace,  and  the 
mutual  prosperity  of  nations.  In  this  respect  America,  the  whole 
of  America,  has  a  new  career  before  her.  If  we  look  back  on  the 
history  of  Europe,  we  see  how  great  a  portion  of  the  last  two  cen- 
turies her  States  have  been  at  war  for  interests  connected  mainly 
with  her  feudal  monarchies;  wars  for  particular  dynasties;  wars  to 
support  or  defeat  particular  successions;  wars  to  enlarge  or  curtail 
the  dominions  of  particular  crowns;  wars  to  support  or  to  dissolve 
family  alliances;  wars,  in  fine,  to  enforce  or  to  resist  religious  intol- 
erance. What  long  and  bloody  chapters  do  these  not  fill,  in  the  his- 
tory of  European  politics!  Who  does  not  see,  and  who  does  not 
rejoice  to  see,  that  America  has  a  glorious  chance  of  escaping,  at 
least,  these  causes  of  contention?  Who  does  not  see,  and  who  does 
not  rejoice  to  see,  that,  on  this  continent,  under  other  forms  of  gov- 
ernment, we  have  before  us  the  noble  hope  of  being  able,  by  the 
mere  influence  of  civil  liberty  and  religious  toleration,  to  dry  up 
these  outpouring  fountains  of  blood,  and  to  extinguish  these  con- 
suming fires  of  war.  The  general  opinion  of  the  age  favors  such 
hopes  and  such  prospects.  There  is  a  growing  disposition  to  treat 
the  intercourse  of  nations  more  like  the  useful  intercourse  of  friends; 
philosophy — just  views  of  national  advantage,  good  sense  and  the 
dictates  of  a  common  religion,  and  an  increasing  conviction  that  war 
is  not  the  interest  of  the  human  race — all  concur,  to  increase  the 
interest  created  by  this  new  accession  to  the  list  of  nations. 

We  have  heard  it  said,  sir,  that  the  topic  of  South  American  In- 
dependence is  worn  out,  and  threadbare.  Such  it  may  be,  sir,  to 
those  who  have  contemplated  it  merely  as  an  article  of  news,  like  the 
fluctuation  of  the  markets,  or  the  rise  and  fall  of  stocks.  Such  it 
may  be,  to  those  minds  who  can  see  no  consequences  following  from 
these  great  events.  But  whoever  has  either  understood  their  present 
importance,  or  can  at  all  estimate  their  future  influence — whoever 
has  reflected  on  the  new  relations  they  introduce  with  other  states — 
whoever,  among  ourselves  especially,  has  meditated  on  the  new  re- 
lations which  we  now  bear  to  them,  and  the  striking  attitude  in  which 
we  ourselves  are  now  placed,  as  the  oldest  of  the  American  nations, 
will  feel  that  the  topic  can  never  be  without  interest;  and  will  be  sen- 
sible that,  whether  we  are  wise  enough  to  perceive  it  or  not,  the  es- 
tablishment of  South  American  independence  will  affect  all  nations, 
and  ourselves  perhaps  more  than  any  other,  through  all  coming  time. 

But,  sir,  although  the  independence  of  these  new  States  seems  ef- 
fectually accomplished,  yet  a  lingering  and  hopeless  war  is  kept  up 
against  them  by  Spain.  This  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  by  all  nations. 
To  Spain  it  is,  as  every  reasonable  man  sees,  useless,  and  without 
hope.  To  the  new  States  themselves  it  is  burdensome  and  afflictive. 
To  the  commerce  of  neutral  nations  it  is  annoying  and  vexatious. — 
There  seems  to  be  something  of  the  pertinacy  of  the  Spanish  char- 
acter in  holding  on  in  such  a  desperate  course.  It  reminds  us  of 
the  seventy  years  during  which  Spain  resisted  the  Independence  of 
Holland.  I  think,  however,  that  there  is  some  reason  to  believe  that 
the  war  approaches  to  its  end.  I  believe  that  the  measures  adopted 
by  our  own  government  have  had  an  effect  in  tending  to  produce  that 
result.     I  understand,  at  least,  that  the  question  of  recognition  has 


334 

been  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Spanish  government;  and  it 
may  be  hoped  that  a  war,  which  Spain  finds  to  be  so  expensive,  which 
the  whole  world  tells  her  is  so  hopeless,  and  which,  if  continued,  now 
threatens  her  with  new  dangers,  she  may,  ere  long,  have  the  prudence 
to  terminate. 

Our  own  course  during  this  contest  between  Spain  and  her  colonies 
is  well  known.  Though  entirely  and  strictly  neutral,  we  were  in 
favor  of  early  recognition.  Our  opinions  were  known  to  the  Allied 
Sovereigns  when  in  Congress  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  1818,  at  which 
time  the  affairs  of  Spain  and  her  colonies  were  under  consideration; 
and,  probably,  the  knowledge  of  those  sentiments,  together  with  the 
policy  adopted  by  England,  prevented  any  interference  by  other  pow- 
ers at  that  time.  Yet  we  have  treated  Spain  with  scrupulous  deli- 
cacy. We  acted  on  the  case  as  one  of  civil  war.  We  treated  with 
the  new  governments  as  governments  de  facto.  Not  questioning 
the  right  of  Spain  to  coerce  them  back  to  their  old  obedience,  if  she 
had  the  power,  we  yet  held  it  to  be  our  right  to  deal  with  them  as 
with  existing  governments  in  fact,  when  the  moment  arrived  at  which 
it  became  apparent  and  manifest  that  the  dominion  of  Spain  over 
these,  her  ancient  colonies,  was  at  an  end.  Our  right,  our  interest, 
and  our  duty,  all  concurred  at  that  moment  to  recommend  recogni- 
tion— and  we  did  recognise. 

Now,  sir,  the  history  of  this  proposed  Congress  goes  back  to  an 
earlier  date  than  that  of  our  recognition.  It  commenced  in  1821; 
and  one  of  the  treaties  now  before  us,  proposing  such  a  meeting, 
that  between  Colombia  and  Chili,  was  concluded  in  July,  1822,  a  few 
months  only  after  we  had  acknowledged  the  independence  of  the 
new  States.  The  idea  originated,  doubtless,  in  the  wish  to  strength- 
en the  union  among  the  new  governments,  and  to  promote  the  com- 
mon cause  of  all,  the  effectual  resistance  to  Spanish  authority.  As 
independence  was  at  that  time  their  leading  object,  it  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  they  contemplated  this  mode  of  mutual  intercourse  and 
mutual  arrangement,  as  favorable  to  the  necessary  concentration  of 
purpose,  and  of  action,  for  the  attainment  of  that  object.  But  this 
purpose  of  the  Congress,  or  this  leading  idea,  in  which  it  may  be 
supposed  to  have  originated,  has  led,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  great 
misapprehensions  as  to  its  true  character,  and  great  mistakes  in  re- 
gard to  the  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  our  sending  ministers  to 
the  meeting.  This  meeting,  sir,  is  a  Congress — not  a  Congress  as 
the  word  is  known  to  our  Constitution  and  laws,  for  we  use  it  in  a 
peculiar  sense;  but  as  it  is  known  to  the  law  of  nations.  A  Con- 
gress, by  the  law  of  nations,  is  but  an  appointed  meeting  for  the  set- 
tlement of  affairs  between  different  nations,  in  which  the  represen- 
tatives or  agents  of  each  treat  and  negotiate  as  they  are  instructed 
by  their  own  government.  In  other  words,  this  Congress  is  a  diplo- 
matic meeting.  We  are  asked  to  join  no  government — no  legisla- 
ture— no  league — acting  by  votes.  It  is  a  Congress,  such  as  those 
of  Westphalia,  of  Nimeguen,  of  Ryswyck,  or  of  Utrecht;  or  such 
as  those  which  have  been  holden  in  Europe,  in  our  own  time.  No 
nation  is  a  party  to  any  thing  done  in  such  assemblies,  to  which  it 
does  not  expressly  make  itself  a  party.  No  one's  rights  are  put  at 
the  disposition  of  any  of  the  rest,  or  of  all  the  rest.     What  ministers 


335 

igree  to,  being  afterwards  duly  ratified  at  home,  binds  their  govern- 
ment; and  nothing  else  binds  the  government.  Whatsoever  is  done, 
to  which  they  do  not  assent,  neither  binds  the  ministers  nor  their 
government,  any  more  than  if  they  had  not  been  present. 

These  truths,  sir,  seem  too  plain,  and  too  commonplace  to  be 
stated.  I  find  my  apology  only  in  those  misapprehensions  of  the 
character  of  the  meeting  to  which  I  have  referred  both  now  and 
formerly.  It  has  been  said  that  commercial  treaties  are  not  nego- 
tiated at  such  meetings.  Far  otherwise  is  the  fact.  Among  the 
earliest  of  important  stipulations  made  in  favor  of  commerce  and 
navigation,  were  those  at  Westphalia.  And  what  we  call  the  treaty 
of  Utrecht,  was  a  bundle  of  treaties,  negotiated  at  that  Congress; 
some  of  peace,  some  of  boundary,  and  others  of  commerce.  Again, 
it  has  been  said,  in  order  to  prove  that  this  meeting  is  a  sort  of  con- 
federacy, that  such  assemblies  are  out  of  the  way  of  ordinary  nego- 
tiation, and  are  always  founded  on,  and  provided  for,  by  previous 
treaties.  Pray,  sir,  what  treaty  preceded  the  Congress  at  Utrecht? 
and  the  meeting  of  our  Plenipotentiaries  with  those  of  England  at 
Ghent,  what  was  that  but  a  Congress?  and  what  treaty  preceded  it? 
It  is  said,  again,  that  there  is  no  sovereign  to  whom  our  ministers 
can  be  accredited.  Let  me  ask  whether,  in  the  case  last  cited,  our 
ministers  exhibited  their  credentials  to  the  Mayor  of  Ghent  ?  Sir, 
the  practice  of  nations  in  these  matters,  is  well  known,  and  is  free 
of  difficulty.  If  the  government  be  not  present,  agents  or  Pleni- 
potentiaries interchange  their  credentials.  And  when  it  is  said  that 
our  ministers  at  Panama  will  be,  not  ministers,  but  deputies,  mem- 
bers of  a  deliberative  body,  not  protected  in  their  public  character  by 
the  public  law;  when  all  this  is  said,  propositions  are  advanced,  of 
which  I  see  no  evidence  whatever,  and  which  appear  to  me  to  be 
wholly  without  foundation. 

It  is  contended  that  this  Congress,  by  virtue  of  the  treaties  which 
the  new  States  have  entered  into,  will  possess  powers  other  than 
those  of  a  diplomatic  character,  as  between  those  new  States  them- 
selves. If  that  were  so,  it  would  be  unimportant  to  us.  The  real 
question  here  is,  what  will  be  our  relation  with  those  States,  by 
sending  ministers  to  this  Congress?  Their  arrangements  among 
themselves  will  not  affect  us.  Even  if  it  were  a  government,  like 
our  old  confederation,  yet,  if  its  members  had  authority  to  treat  with 
us  in  behalf  of  their  respective  nations  on  subjects  on  which  we 
have  a  right  to  treat,  the  Congress  might  still  be  a  very  proper  oc- 
casion for  such  negotiations.  Do  gentlemen  forget  that  the  French 
Minister  was  introduced  to  our  old  Congress,  met  it  in  its  sessions, 
carried  on  oral  discussions  with  it,  and  treated  with  it  in  behalf  of 
the  French  King?  All  that  did  not  make  him  a  member  of  it;  nor 
connect  him  at  all  with  the  relations  which  its  members  bore  to  each 
other.  As  he  treated  on  the  subject  of  carrying  on  the  war  against 
England,  it  was,  doubtless,  hostile  towards  that  power;  but  this  con- 
sequence followed  from  the  object  and  nature  of  the  stipulations, 
and  not  from  the  manner  of  the  intercourse.  The  Representatives 
of  these  South  American  States,  it  is  said,  will  carry  on  belligerant 
councils  at  this  Congress.  Be  it  so;  we  shall  not  join  in  such  coun- 
cils.    At  the  moment  of  invitation,  our  Government  informed  the 


336 

ministers  of  those  States,  that  we  could  not  make  ourselves  a  party 
to  the  war  between  them  and  Spain,  nor  to  councils  for  deliberating 
on  the  means  of  its  further  prosecution. 

If,  it  is  asked,  we  send  ministers  to  a  Congress  composed  alto- 
gether of  belligerants,  is  it  not  a  breach  of  neutrality  ?  Certainly 
not:  no  man  can  say  it  is.  Suppose,  sir,  that  these  ministers  from 
the  new  states,  instead  of  Panama,  were  to  assemble  at  Bogota, 
where  we  already  have  a  minister:  their  councils,  at  that  place, 
might  be  belligerant,  while  the  war  should  last  with  Spain.  But 
should  we,  on  that  account,  recall  our  minister  from  Bogota? 
The  whole  argument  rests  on  this;  that  because,  at  the  same  time 
and  place,  the  agents  of  the  South  American  Governments  may 
negotiate  about  their  own  relations  with  each  other,  in  regard  to 
their  common  war  against  Spain,  therefore  we  cannot,  at  the  same 
time  and  place,  negotiate  with  them,  or  any  of  them,  upon  our  own 
neutral  and  commercial  relations.  This  proposition,  sir,  cannot  be 
maintained;  and,  therefore,  all  the  inferences  from  it  fail. 

But,  sir,  I  see  no  proof  that,  as  between  themselves,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  South  American  States  are  to  possess  other  than 
diplomatic  powers.  I  refer  to  the  treaties,  which  are  essentially 
alike,  and  which  have  been  often  read. 

With  two  exceptions,  (which  I  will  notice,)  the  articles  of  these 
treaties,  describing  the  powers  of  the  Congress,  are  substantially 
like  those  in  the  treaty  of  Paris,  in  1814,  providing  for  the  Congress 
at  Vienna.  It  was  there  stipulated  that  all  the  powers  should  send 
plenipotentiaries  to  Vienna,  to  regulate,  in  general  Congress,  the 
arrangements  to  complete  the  provisions  of  the  present  treaty. 
Now,  it  might  have  been  here  asked,  how  regulate?  How  regulate 
in  general  Congress? — regulate  by  votes?  Sir,  nobody  asked  such 
questions:  simply  because  it  was  to  be  a  Congress  of  plenipotentia- 
ries. The  two  exceptions  which  I  have  mentioned,  are,  that  this 
Congress  is  to  act  as  a  council  and  to  interpret  treaties;  but  there 
is  nothing  in-either  of  these  to  be  done  which  may  not  be  done  di- 
plomatically. What  is  more  common  than  diplomatic  intercourse, 
to  explain  and  to  interpret  treaties?  Or  what  more  frequent  than 
that  nations,  having  a  common  object,  interchange  mutual  counsels 
and  advice,  through  the  medium  of  their  respective  ministers?  To 
bring  this  matter,  sir,  to  the  test,  let  me  ask,  when  these  ministers 
assemble  at  Panama,  can  they  do  anything  but  according  to  their 
instructions?  Have  they  any  organization,  any  power  of  action, 
or  any  rule  of  action  common  to  them  all?  No  more,  sir,  than  the 
respective  ministers  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna.  Everything  is 
settled  by  the  use  of  the  word  Plenipotentiary.  That  proves  the 
meeting  to  be  diplomatic,  and  nothing  else.  Who  ever  heard  of  a 
plenipotentiary  member  of  the  Legislature  ? — a  plenipotentiary  bur- 
gess of  a  city  ? — or  a  plenipotentiary  knight  of  the  shire  ? 

We  may  dismiss  all  fears,  sir,  arising  from  the  nature  of  this  meet- 
ing. Our  agents  will  go  there,  if  they  go  at  all,  in  the  character  of 
ministers,  protected  by  the  public  law,  negotiating  only  for  ourselves, 
and  not  called  on  to  violate  any  neutral  duty  of  their  own  govern- 
ment. If  it  be  so  that  this  meeting  has  other  powers,  in  consequence 
of  other  arrangements  between  other  States,  of  which  I  see  no  proof, 


337 

still,  we  are  not  party  to  these  arrangements,  nor  can  be  in  any  way 
affected  by  them.  As  far  as  this  government  is  concerned,  nothing 
can  be  done  but  by  negotiation,  as  in  other  cases. 

It  has  been  affirmed,  that  this  measure,  and  the  sentiments  expres- 
sed by  the  Executive  relative  to  its  objects,  are  an  acknowledged 
departure  from  the  neutral  policy  of  the  United  States.  Sir,  I  deny 
there  is  an  acknowledged  departure,  or  any  departure  at  all,  from 
the  neutral  policy  of  the  country.  What  do  we  mean  by  our  neu- 
tral policy?  Not,  I  suppose,  a  blind  and  stupid  indifference  to  what- 
ever is  passing  around  us;  not  a  total  disregard  to  approaching 
events,  or  approaching  evils,  till  they  meet  us  full  in  the  face.  Nor 
do  we  mean,  by  our  neutral  policy,  that  we  intend  never  to  assert 
our  rights  by  force.  No,  sir.  We  mean  by  our  policy  of  neutral- 
ity, that  the  great  objects  of  national  pursuit  with  us  are  connected 
with  peace.  We  covet  no  provinces;  we  desire  no  conquests;  we 
entertain  no  ambitious  projects  of  aggrandizement  by  war.  This 
is  our  policy.  But  it  does  not  follow,  from  this,  that  we  rely  less 
than  other  nations,  on  our  own  power  to  vindicate  our  own  rights. 
We  know  that  the  last  logic  of  kings  is  also  our  last  logic;  that  our 
own  interests  must  be  defended  and  maintained  by  our  own  arm; 
and  that  peace  or  war  may  not  always  be  of  our  own  choosing.  Our 
neutral  policy,  therefore,  not  only  justifies  but  requires,  our  anxious 
attention  to  the  political  events  which  take  place  in  the  world,  a 
skilful  perception  of  their  relation  to  our  own  concerns,  and  an  early 
anticipation  of  their  consequences,  and  firm  and  timely  assertion  of 
what  we  hold  to  be  our  own  rights,  and  our  own  interests.  Our 
neutrality  is  not  a  predetermined  abstinence,  either  from  remonstran- 
ces, or  from  force.  Our  neutral  policy  is  a  policy  that  protects  neu- 
trality, that  defends  neutrality,  that  takes  up  arms,  if  need  be,  for 
neutrality.  When  it  is  said,  therefore,  that  this  measure  departs 
from  our  neutral  policy,  either  that  policy,  or  the  measure  itself,  is 
misunderstood.  It  implies  either  that  the  object  or  the  tendency  of 
the  measure  is  to  involve  us  in  the  war  of  other  States,  which  I  think 
cannot  be  shown,  or  that  the  assertion  of  our  own  sentiments,  on 
points  affecting  deeply  our  own  interests,  may  place  us  in  a  hostile 
attitude  with  other  States,  and  that,  therefore,  we  depart  from  neu- 
trality; whereas  the  truth  is,  that  the  decisive  assertion,  and  the  firm 
support  of  these  sentiments,  may  be  most  essential  to  the  mainten- 
ance of  neutrality. 

An  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania  thinks  this  Congress 
will  bring  a  dark  day  over  the  United  States.  Doubtless,  sir,  it  is 
an  interesting  moment  in  our  history;  but  I  see  no  great  proofs  of 
thick  coming  darkness.  But  the  object  of  the  remark  seemed  to  be 
to  show  that  the  President  himself  saw  difficulties  on  all  sides,  and, 
making  a  choice  of  evils,  preferred  rather  to  send  ministers  to  this 
Congress,  than  to  run  the  risk  of  exciting  the  hostility  of  the  States 
by  refusing  to  send.  In  other  words,  the  gentleman  wished  to  prove 
that  the  President  intended  an  alliance;  although  such  intention  is 
expressly  disclaimed. 

Much  commentary  has  been  bestowed  on  the  letters  of  invitation 
from  the  ministers.  I  shall  not  go  through  with  verbal  criticisms 
on  these  letters.  Their  general  import  is  plain  enough.  I  shall  not 
43  EE 


338 

gather  together  small  and  minute  quotations,  taking  a  sentence  here, 
a  word  there,  and  a  syllable  in  a  third  place,  dovetailing  them  into 
the  course  of  remark,  till  the  printed  discourse  bristles  with  inver- 
ted commas,  in  every  line,  like  a  harvest-field.  I  look  to  the  gen- 
eral tenor  of  the  invitations,  and  I  find  that  we  are  asked  to  take 
part  only  in  such  things  as  concern  ourselves.  I  look  still  more 
carefully  to  the  answers,  and  I  see  every  proper  caution,  and  proper 
guard.  I  look  to  the  message,  and  I  see  that  nothing  is  there 
contemplated,  likely  to  involve  us  in  other  men's  quarrels,  or  that 
may  justly  give  offence  to  any  foreign  State.  With  this,  I  am 
satisfied. 

I  must  now  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Committee  to  an  important 
point  in  the  discussion,  I  mean  the  Declaration  of  the  President  in 
1823.  Not  only  as  a  member  of  the  House,  but  as  a  citizen  of  the 
country,  I  have  an  anxious  desire  that  this  part  of  our  public  his- 
tory should  stand  in  its  proper  light.  Sir,  in  my  judgment  the  coun- 
try has  a  very  high  honor,  connected  with  that  occurrence,  which 
we  may  maintain,  or  which  we  may  sacrifice.  I  look  upon  it  as 
a  part  of  its  treasures  of  reputation;  and,  for  one,  I  intend  to 
guard  it. 

Sir,  let  us  recur  to  the  important  political  events  which  led  to  that 
declaration,  or  accompanied  it.  In  the  fall  of  1822,  the  allied  sov- 
ereigns held  their  Congress  at  Verona.  The  great  subject  of  con- 
sideration was  the  condition  of  Spain,  that  country  then  being  under 
the  government  of  the  Cortes.  The  question  was,  whether  Fer- 
dinand should  be  reinstated  in  all  his  authority,  by  the  intervention 
of  foreign  force.  Russia,  Prussia,  France,  and  Austria,  were  in- 
clined to  that  measure;  England  dissented  and  protested;  but  the 
course  was  agreed  on,  and  France,  with  the  consent  of  these  other 
continental  powers,  took  the  conduct  of  the  operation  into  her  own 
hands.  In  the  spring  of  1823,  a  French  army  was  sent  into  Spain. 
Its  success  was  complete.  The  popular  government  was  over- 
thrown, and  Ferdinand  reestablished  in  all  his  power.  This  inva- 
sion, sir,  was  determined  on,  and  undertaken,  precisely  on  the  doc- 
trines which  the  allied  monarchs  had  proclaimed  the  year  before,  at 
Laybach;  and  that  is,  that  they  had  a  right  to  interfere  in  the  con- 
cerns of  another  State,  and  reform  its  government,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  effects  of  its  bad  example;  this  bad  example,  be  it  remem- 
bered, always  being  the  example  of  free  government.  Now,  sir, 
acting  on  this  principle  of  supposed  dangerous  example,  and  having 
put  down  the  example  of  the  Cortes  in  Spain,  it  was  natural  to  in- 
quire with  what  eyes  they  would  look  on  the  colonies  of  Spain,  that 
were  following  still  worse  examples.  Would  King  Ferdinand  and 
his  allies  be  content  with  what  had  been  done  in  Spain  itself,  or 
would  he  solicit  their  aid,  and  was  it  likely  they  would  grant  it,  to 
subdue  his  rebellious  American  Provinces, 

Sir,  it  was  in  this  posture  of  affairs,  on  an  occasion  which  has  al- 
ready been  alluded  to,  that  I  ventured  to  say,  edrly  in  the  session 
of  December,  1823,  that  these  allied  monarchs  might  possibly  turn 
their  attention  to  America;  that  America  came  within  their  avowed 
doctrine,  and  that  her  examples  might  very  possibly  attract  their  no- 
tice.    The  doctrines  of  Laybach  were  not  limited  to  any  continent; 


339 

Spain  had  colonies  in  America,  and  having  reformed  Spain  herself 
to  the  true  standard,  it  was  not  impossible  that  they  might  see  fit  to 
complete  the  work  by  reconciling,  in  their  way,  the  colonies  to  the 
mother  country.  Now,  sir,  it  did  so  happen,  that  as  soon  as  the 
Spanish  King  was  completely  reestablished,  he  did  invite  the  co- 
operation of  his  allies,  in  regard  to  South  America.  In  the  same 
month  of  December,  of  1823,  a  formal  invitation  was  addressed  by 
Spain  to  the  courts  of  St.  Petersburg,  Vienna,  Berlin,  and  Paris, 
proposing  to  establish  a  conference  at  Paris,  in  order  that  the  Pleni- 
potentiaries, there  assembled,  might  aid  Spain  in  adjusting  the  af- 
fairs of  her  revolted  provinces.  These  affairs  were  proposed  to  be 
adjusted  in  such  manner  as  should  retain  the  sovereignty  of  Spain 
over  them;  and  though  the  cooperation  of  the  allies,  by  force  of 
arms,  was  not  directly  solicited — such  was  evidently  the  object  aim- 
ed at. 

The  King  of  Spain,  in  making  this  request  to  the  members  of  the 
Holy  Alliance,  argued,  as  it  had  been  seen  he  might  argue.  He 
quoted  their  own  doctrines  of  Laybach;  he  pointed  out  the  pernicious 
example  of  America;  and  he  reminded  them  that  their  success,  in 
Spain  itself,  had  paved  the  way  for  successful  operations  against  the 
spirit  of  liberty  on  this  side  the  Atlantic. 

The  proposed  meeting,  however,  did  not  take  place.  England 
had  already  taken  a  decided  course;  for,  as  early  as  October,  Mr. 
Canning,  in  a  conference  with  the  French  minister  in  London,  in- 
formed him  distinctly  and  expressly,  that  England  would  consider 
any  foreign  interference,  by  force  or  by  menace,  in  the  dispute  be- 
tween Spain  and  the  colonies,  as  a  motive  for  recognising  the  latter, 
without  delay. 

It  is  probable  this  determination  of  the  English  government  was 
known  here,  at  the  commencement  of  the  session  of  Congress;  and 
it  was  under  these  circumstances,  it  was  in  this  crisis,  that  Mr. 
Monroe's  declaration  was  made.  It  was  not  then  ascertained  wheth- 
er a  meeting  of  the  Allies  would,  or  would  not,  take  place,  to  con- 
cert with  Spain  the  means  of  reestablishing  her  power;  but  it  was 
plain  enough  they  would  be  pressed  by  Spain  to  aid  her  operations; 
and  it  was  plain  enough  also,  that  they  had  no  particular  liking  to 
what  was  taking  place  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  nor  any  great  disin- 
clination to  interfere.  This  was  the  posture  of  affairs;  and,  sir,  I 
concur  entirely  in  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the  resolution,  of  a 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  Markley,)  that  this  declaration 
of  Mr.  Monroe  was  wise,  seasonable,  and  patriotic. 

It  has  been  said,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  to  have  been  a 
loose  and  vague  declaration.  It  was,  I  believe,  sufficiently  studied. 
I  have  understood,  from  good  authority,  that  it  was  considered, 
weighed,  and  distinctly  and  decidedly  approved  by  every  one  of  the 
President's  advisers,  at  that  time.  Our  government  could  not  adopt, 
on  that  occasion,  precisely  the  course  which  England  had  taken. 
England  threatened  the  immediate  recognition  of  the  Provinces,  if 
the  Allies  should  take  part  with  Spain  against  them. — We  had  al- 
ready recognised  them.  It  remained,  therefore,  only  for  our  gov- 
ernment to  say  how  we  should  consider  a  combination  of  the  Allied 
Powers,  to  effect  objects  in  America,  as  affecting  ourselves;  and  the 


340 

message  was  intended  to  say,  what  it  does  say,  that  we  should  regard 
such  combination  as  dangerous  to  us.  Sir,  I  agree  with  those  who 
maintain  the  proposition,  and  I  contend  against  those  who  deny  it, 
that  the  message  did  mean  something;  that  it  meant  much;  and  I 
maintain,  against  both,  that  the  declaration  effected  much  good,  an- 
swered the  end  designed  by  it,  did  great  honor  to  the  foresight,  and 
the  spirit  of  the  government,  and  that  it  cannot  now  be  taken  back, 
retracted  or  annulled,  without  disgrace.  It  met,  sir,  with  the  entire 
concurrence,  and  the  hearty  approbation  of  the  country.  The  tone 
which  it  uttered  found  a  corresponding  response  in  the  breasts  of  the 
free  people  of  the  United  States.  That  people  saw,  and  they  re- 
joiced to  see,  that,  on  a  fit  occasion,  our  weight  had  been  thrown  in- 
to the  right  scale,  and  that,  without  departing  from  our  duty,  we  had 
done  something  useful,  and  something  effectual,  for  the  cause  of  civil 
liberty.  One  general  glow  of  exultation — one  universal  feeling  of 
the  gratified  love  of  liberty — one  conscious  and  proud  perception  of 
the  consideration  which  the  country  possessed,  and  of  the  respect 
and  honor  which  belonged  to  it — pervaded  all  bosoms.  Possibly  the 
public  enthusiasm  went  too  far;  it  certainly  did  go  far.  But,  sir,  the 
sentiment  which  this  declaration  inspired  was  not  confined  to  our- 
selves. Its  force  was  felt  everywhere,  by  all  those  who  could  un- 
derstand its  object,  and  foresee  its  effect.  In  that  very  House  of 
Commons,  of  which  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  has  spoken 
with  such  commendation,  how  was  it  there  received?  Not  only,  sir, 
with  approbation,  but,  I  may  say,  with  no  little  enthusiasm.  While 
the  leading  minister  expressed  his  entire  concurrence  in  the  senti- 
ments and  opinions  of  the  American  President,  his  distinguished 
competitor  in  that  popular  body,  less  restrained  by  official  decorum, 
and  more  at  liberty  to  give  utterance  to  all  the  feeling  of  the  occa- 
sion, declared  that  no  event  had  ever  created  greater  joy,  exultation, 
and  gratitude,  among  all  the  free  men  in  Europe;  that  he  felt  pride 
in  being  connected  by  blood  and  language,  with  the  people  of  the 
United  States;  that  the  policy  disclosed  by  the  message,  became  a 
great,  a  free,  and  an  independent  nation;  and  that  he  hoped  his  own 
country  would  be  prevented  by  no  mean  pride,  or  paltry  jealousy, 
from  following  so  noble  and  glorious  an  example. 

It  is  doubtless  true,  as  I  took  occasion  to  observe  the  other  day, 
that  this  declaration  must  be  considered  as  founded  on  our  rights, 
and  to  spring  mainly  from  a  regard  to  their  preservation.  It  did  not 
commit  us  at  all  events  to  take  up  arms,  on  any  indication  of  hostile 
feeling  by  the  powers  of  Europe  towards  South  America.  If,  for 
example,  all  the  States  of  Europe  had  refused  to  trade  with  South 
America,  until  her  States  should  return  to  their  former  allegiance, 
that  would  have  furnished  no  cause  of  interference  to  us.  Or  if  an 
armament  had  been  furnished  by  the  allies  to  act  against  provinces 
the  most  remote  from  us,  as  Chili  or  Buenos  Ayres,  the  distance  of 
the  scene  of  action  diminishing  our  apprehension  of  danger,  and 
diminishing  also  our  means  of  effectual  interposition,  might  still  have 
left  us  to  content  ourselves  with  remonstrance.  But  a  very  differ- 
ent case  would  have  arisen,  if  an  army,  equipped  and  maintained  by 
these  powers,  had  been  landed  on  the  shores  of  the  Gulf  of  Mex- 
ico, and  commenced  the  war  in  our  own  immediate  neighbourhood. 


341 

Such  an  event  might  justly  be  regarded  as  dangerous  to  ourselves, 
and,  on  that  ground,  to  have  called  for  decided  and  immediate  inter- 
ference by  us.  The  sentiments  and  the  policy  announced  by  the 
declaration,  thus  understood,  were,  therefore,  in  strict  conformity  to 
our  duties  and  our  interest. 

Sir,  I  look  on  the  message  of  December,  1823,  as  forming  a  bright 
page  in  our  history.  I  will  neither  help  to  erase  it,  or  tear  it  out; 
nor  shall  it  be,  by  any  act  of  mine,  blurred  or  blotted.  It  did  honor 
to  the  sagacity  of  the  government,  and  I  will  not  diminish  that 
honor.  It  elevated  the  hopes,  and  gratified  the  patriotism,  of  the 
people.  Over  those  hopes  I  will  not  bring  a  mildew;  nor  will  I  put 
that  gratified  patriotism  to  shame. 

But  how  should  it  happen,  sir,  that  there  should  now  be  such  a 
new-born  fear,  on  the  subject  of  this  declaration?  The  crisis  is 
over;  the  danger  is  past.  At  the  time  it  was  made,  there  was  real 
ground  for  apprehension:  now  there  is  none.  It  was  then  possi- 
ble, perhaps  not  improbable,  that  the  allied  powers  might  interfere 
with  America.  There  is  now  no  ground  for  any  such  fear.  Most 
of  the  gentlemen  who  have  now  spoken  on  the  subject,  were  at  that 
time  here.  They  all  heard  the  declaration.  Not  one  of  them  com- 
plained. And  yet,  now,  when  all  danger  is  over,  we  are  vehement- 
ly warned  against  the  sentiments  of  the  declaration. 

To  avoid  this  apparent  inconsistency,  it  is,  however,  contended, 
that  new  force  has  been  recently  given  to  this  declaration.  But  of 
this,  I  see  no  evidence  whatever.  I  see  nothing  in  any  instructions 
or  communications  from  our  government  changing  the  character  of 
that  declaration  in  any  degree.  There  is,  as  I  have  before  said,  in 
one  of  Mr.  Poinsett's  letters,  an  inaccuracy  of  expression.  If  he 
has  recited  correctly  his  conversation  with  the  Mexican  minister, 
he  did  go  too  far:  farther  than  any  instruction  warranted.  But, 
taking  his  whole  correspondence  together,  it  is  quite  manifest  that 
he  has  deceived  nobody,  nor  has  he  committed  the  country.  On  the 
subject  of  a  pledge,  he  put  the  Mexican  minister  entirely  right. 
He  stated  to  him,  distinctly,  that  this  government  had  given  no 
pledge  which  others  could  call  upon  it  to  redeem.  What  could  be 
more  explicit?  Again,  sir:  it  is  plain  that  Mexico  thought  us  un- 
der no  greater  pledge  than  England:  for  the  letters  to  the  English 
and  American  ministers,  requesting  interference,  were  in  precisely 
the  same  words.  When  this  passage  in  Mr.  Poinsett's  letter  was 
first  noticed,  we  were  assured  there  was  and  must  be  some  other 
authority  for  it.  It  was  confidently  said  he  had  instructions,  au- 
thorising it,  in  his  pocket.  It  turns  out  otherwise.  As  little  ground 
is  there  to  complain  of  anything  in  the  Secretary's  letter  to  Mr. 
Poinsett.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  precisely  what  it  should  be.  It 
does  not,  as  has  been  alleged,  propose  any  cooperation  between  the 
government  of  Mexico  and  our  own.  Nothing  like  it.  It  instructs 
our  ministers  to  bring  to  the  notice  of  the  Mexican  government  the 
line  of  policy  which  we  have  marked  out  for  ourselves — acting  on 
our  own  grounds,  and  for  our  own  interests;  and  to  suggest  to  that 
government,  acting  on  its  own  ground,  and  for  its  own  interests,  the 
propriety  of  following  a  similar  course.  Here,  sir,  is  no  alliance, 
nor  even  any  cooperation. 


342 

So,  again,  as  to  the  correspondence  which  refers  to  the  appear- 
ance of  the  French  fleet  in  the  West  India  Seas.  Be  it  remember- 
ed, that  our  government  was  contending,  in  the  course  of  this  cor- 
respondence with  Mexico,  for  an  equality  in  matters  of  commerce. 
It  insisted  on  being  placed,  in  this  respect,  on  the  same  footing  as 
the  other  South  American  States.  To  enforce  this  claim,  our  known 
friendly  sentiments  towards  Mexico,  as  well  as  to  the  rest  of  the 
new  States,  were  suggested — and  properly  suggested.  Mexico 
was  reminded  of  the  timely  declaration  which  had  been  made  of 
these  sentiments. — She  was  reminded  that  she  herself  had  been 
well  inclined  to  claim  the  benefit  resulting  from  that  declaration, 
when  a  French  fleet  appeared  in  the  neighbouring  seas;  and  she 
was  referred  to  the  course  adopted  by  our  government  on  that  oc- 
casion, with  an  intimation  that  she  might  learn  from  it  how  the  same 
government  would  have  acted  if  other  possible  contingencies  had 
happened.  What  is  there,  in  all  this,  of  any  renewed  pledge,  or 
what  is  there  of  anything  beyond  the  true  line  of  our  policy  ?  Do 
gentlemen  mean  to  say  that  the  communication  made  to  France,  on 
this  occasion,  was  improper?  Do  they  mean  to  repel  and  repudiate 
that  declaration?  That  declaration  was,  that  we  could  not  see  Cuba 
transferred  from  Spain  to  another  European  power.  If  the  House 
mean  to  contradict  that — be  it  so.  If  it  do  not,  then,  as  the  gov- 
ernment had  acted  properly  in  this  case,  it  did  furnish  ground  to 
believe  it  would  act  properly,  also,  in  other  cases,  when  they  arose. 
And  the  reference  to  this  incident  or  occurrence  by  the  Secretary, 
was  pertinent  to  the  argument  which  he  was  pressing  on  the  Mex- 
ican government. 

I  have  but  a  word  to  say  on  the  subject  of  the  declaration  against 
European  colonization  in  America.  The  late  President  seems  to 
have  thought  the  occasion  used  by  him  for  that  purpose  to  be  a  pro- 
per one  for  the  open  avowal  of  a  principle  which  had  already  been 
acted  on.  Great  and  practical  inconveniences,  it  was  feared,  might 
be  apprehended,  from  the  establishment  of  new  colonies  in  America, 
having  a  European  origin  and  a  European  connexion.  Attempts 
of  that  kind,  it  was  obvious,  might  possibly  be  made,  amidst  the 
changes  that  were  taking  place,  in  Mexico,  as  well  as  in  the  more 
Southern  States.  Mexico  bounds  us,  on  a  vast  length  of  line,  from 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  There  are  many  reasons 
why  it  should  not  be  desired  by  us,  that  an  establishment,  under 
the  protection  of  a  different  power,  should  occupy  any  portion  of 
that  space.  We  have  a  general  interest,  that  through  all  the  vast 
territories  rescued  from  the  dominion  of  Spain,  our  commerce  might 
find  its  way,  protected  by  treaties  with  governments  existing  on  the 
spot.  These  views,  and  others  of  a  similar  character,  rendered  it 
highly  desirable  to  us,  that  these  new  States  should  settle  it,  as  a 
part  of  their  policy,  not  to  allow  colonization  within  their  respective 
territories.  True,  indeed,  we  did  not  need  their  aid  to  assist  us  in 
maintaining  such  a  course  for  ourselves;  but  we  had  an  interest  in 
their  assertion  and  support  of  the  principle  as  applicable  to  their 
own  territories. 

I  now  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  a  few  remarks  on  the  subject 
of  Cuba,  the  most  important  point  of  our  foreign  relations.     It  is 


343 

the  hinge  on  which  interesting  events  may  possibly  turn.  I  pray 
gentlemen  to  review  their  opinions  on  this  subject  before  they  fully 
commit  themselves.  I  understood  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina  to  say,  that  if  Spain  chose  to  transfer  this  Island  to 
any  power  in  Europe,  she  had  a  right  to  do  so,  and  we  could  not 
interfere  to  prevent  it.  Sir,  this  is  a  delicate  subject.  I  hardly  feel 
competent  to  treat  it  as  it  deserves;  and  I  am  not  quite  willing  to 
state  here  all  that  I  think  about  it.  I  must,  however,  dissent  from 
the  opinion  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  The  right  of 
nations,  on  subjects  of  this  kind,  are  necessarily  very  much  modified 
by  circumstances.  Because  England  or  France  could  not  rightfully 
complain  of  the  transfer  of  Florida  to  us,  it  by  no  means  follows, 
as  the  gentleman  supposes,  that  we  could  not  complain  of  the  ces- 
sion of  Cuba  to  one  of  them.  The  plain  difference  is,  that  the 
transfer  of  Florida  to  us  was  not  dangerous  to  the  safety  of  either 
of  those  nations,  nor  fatal  to  any  of  their  great  and  essential  inter- 
ests. Proximity  of  position,  neighbourhood,  whatever  augments 
the  power  of  injuring  and  annoying,  very  properly  belong  to  the 
consideration  of  all  cases  of  this  kind.  The  greater  or  less  facility 
of  access  itself  is  of  consideration  in  such  questions,  because  it 
brings,  or  may  bring,  weighty  consequences  with  it.  It  justifies, 
for  these  reasons,  and  on  these  grounds,  what  otherwise  might  never 
be  thought  of.  By  negotiation  with  a  foreign  power,  Mr.  Jefferson 
obtained  a  province.  Without  any  alteration  of  our  Constitution, 
we  have  made  it  part  of  the  United  States,  and  its  Senators  and 
Representatives,  now  coming  from  several  States,  are  here  among 
us.  Now,  sir,  if,  instead  of  being  Louisiana,  this  had  been  one 
of  the  provinces  of  Spain  proper,  or  one  of  her  South  American 
colonies,  he  must  have  been  a  madman,  that  should  have  proposed 
such  an  acquisition.  A  high  conviction  of  its  convenience,  arising 
from  proximity,  and  from  close  natural  connexion,  alone  reconciled 
the  country  to  the  measure.  Considerations  of  the  same  sort  have 
weight  in  other  cases. 

An  honorable  member  from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  Wickliffe,)  argues, 
that  although  we  might  rightfully  prevent  another  power  from  taking 
Cuba  from  Spain,  by  force,  yet  if  Spain  should  choose  to  make  the 
voluntary  transfer,  we  should  have  no  right  whatever  to  interfere. 
Sir,  this  is  a  distinction  without  a  difference.  If  we  are  likely  to 
have  contention  about  Cuba,  let  us  first  well  consider  what  our  rights 
are,  and  not  commit  ourselves.  And,  sir,  if  we  have  any  right  to 
interfere  at  all,  it  applies  as  well  to  the  case  of  a  peaceable,  as  to 
that  of  a  forcible,  transfer.  If  nations  be  at  war,  we  are  not  judges 
of  the  question  of  right,  in  that  war;  we  must  acknowledge,  in  both 
parties,  the  mutual  right  of  attack,  and  the  mutual  right  of  conquest. 
It  is  not  for  us  to  set  bounds  to  their  belligerant  operations,  so  long 
as  they  do  not  affect  ourselves.  Our  right  to  interfere,  sir,  in  any 
such  case,  is  but  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  reasonable  and  neces- 
sary self-defence.  It  is  a  high  and  delicate  exercise  of  that  right; 
one  not  to  be  made  but  on  grounds  of  strong  and  manifest  reason, 
justice,  and  necessity.  The  real  question  is,  whether  the  possession 
of  Cuba  by  a  great  maritime  power  of  Europe,  would  seriously 
endanger  our  own  immediate  security,  or  our  essential  interests 


344 

I  put  the  question,  sir,  in  the  language  of  some  of  the  best  consid- 
ered state  papers  of  modern  times.  The  general  rule  of  national 
law,  is,  unquestionably,  against  interference,  in  the  transactions  of 
other  States.  There  are,  however,  acknowledged  exceptions,  grow- 
ing out  of  circumstances,  and  founded  in  those  circumstances. 
These  exceptions,  it  has  been  properly  said,  cannot,  without  danger, 
be  reduced  to  previous  rule,  and  incorporated  into  the  ordinary  diplo 
macy  of  nations.  Nevertheless,  they  do  exist,  and  must  be  judged 
of,  when  they  arise,  with  a  just  regard  to  our  own  essential  interests, 
but  in  a  spirit  of  strict  justice  and  delicacy  also  towards  foreign  States. 

The  ground  of  these  exceptions  is,  as  I  have  already  stated,  self- 
preservation.  It  is  not  a  slight  injury  to  our  interest;  it  is  not  even 
a  great  inconvenience,  that  makes  out  a  case.  There  must  be 
danger  to  our  security,  or  danger,  manifest  and  imminent  danger, 
to  our  essential  rights,  and  our  essential  interests.  Now,  sir,  let  us 
look  at  Cuba.  I  need  hardly  refer  to  its  present  amount  of  com- 
mercial connexion  with  the  United  States.  Our  statistical  tables, 
I  presume,  would  show  us,  that  our  commerce  with  the  Havanna 
alone  is  more  in  amount  than  our  whole  commercial  intercourse  with 
France  and  all  her  dependencies.  But  this  is  but  one  part  of  the 
case,  and  not  the  most  important.  Cuba,  as  is  well  said  in  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  is  placed  in  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi.  Its  occupation  by  a  strong  maritime  power  would 
be  felt,  in  the  first  moment  of  hostility,  as  far  up  the  Mississippi  and 
the  Missouri,  as  our  population  extends.  It  is  the  commanding  point 
of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  See,  too,  how  it  lies  in  the  very  line  of 
our  coast  wise  traffic;  interposed  in  the  very  highway  between  New 
York  and  New  Orleans. 

Now,  sir,  who  has  estimated,  or  who  can  estimate,  the  effect  of  a 
change,  which  should  place  this  Island  in  other  hands,  subject  it  to 
new  rules  of  commercial  intercourse,  or  connect  it  with  objects  of  a 
different  and  still  more  dangerous  nature?  Sir,  I  repeat  that  I  feel 
no  disposition  to  pursue  this  topic,  on  the  present  occasion.  My 
purpose  is  only  to  show  its  importance,  and  to  beg  gentlemen  not  to 
prejudice  any  rights  of  the  country  by  assenting  to  propositions, 
which,  perhaps,  may  be  necessary  to  be  reviewed. 

And  here  I  differ  again  with  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky.  He 
thinks  that,  in  this,  as  in  other  cases,  we  should  wait  till  the  event 
comes,  without  any  previous  declaration  of  our  sentiments  upon 
subjects  important  to  our  own  rights  or  our  own  interests.  Sir,  such 
declarations  are  often  the  appropriate  means  of  preventing  that 
which,  if  unprevented,  it  might  be  difficult  to  redress.  A  great  object 
in  holding  diplomatic  intercourse,  is  frankly  to  expose  the  views  and 
objects  of  nations,  and  to  prevent,  by  candid  explanation,  collision 
and  war.  In  this  case,  the  government  has  said  that  we  could  not 
assent  to  the  transfer  of  Cuba,  to  another  European  State.  Can 
we  so  assent  ?  Do  gentlemen  think  we  can  ?  If  not,  then  it  was 
entirely  proper  that  this  intimation  should  be  frankly  and  seasonably 
made.  Candor  required  it;  and  it  would  have  been  unpardonable, 
it  would  have  been  injustice,  as  well  as  folly,  to  have  been  silent, 
while  we  might  suppose  the  transaction  to  be  contemplated,  and  then 
to  complain  of  it  afterwards.     If  we  should  have  a  subsequent  right 


345 

to  complain,  we  have  a  previous  right,  equally  clear,  of  protesting, 
and  if  the  evil  be  one,  which,  when  it  comes,  would  allow  us  to  apply 
a  remedy,  it  not  only  allows  us,  but  it  makes  it  our  duty,  also,  to 
apply  prevention. 

But,  sir,  while  some  gentlemen  have  maintained,  that  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a  transfer  to  any  of  the  European  powers,  the  President  has 
said  too  much,  others  insist  that  on  that  of  the  Islands  being  occu- 
pied by  Mexico  or  Colombia,  he  has  said  and  done  too  little.  I 
presume,  sir,  for  my  own  part,  that  the  strongest  language  has  been 
directed  to  the  source  of  greatest  danger.  Heretofore  that  danger 
was,  doubtless,  greatest,  which  was  apprehended  from  a  voluntary 
transfer.  The  other  has  been  met,  as  it  arose;  and,  thus  far,  ade- 
quately and  sufficiently  met.  And  here,  sir,  I  cannot  but  say  that 
1  never  knew  a  more  extraordinary  argument  than  we  have  heard 
on  the  conduct  of  the  Executive  on  this  part  of  the  case.  The 
President  is  charged  with  inconsistency;  and,  in  order  to  make  this 
out,  public  despatches  are  read,  which,  it  is  said,  militate  with  one 
another. 

Sir,  what  are  the  facts  ?  This  government  saw  fit  to  invite  the  Em- 
peror of  Russia  to  use  his  endeavours  to  bring  Spain  to  treat  of 
peace  with  her  revolted  colonies.  Russia  was  addressed  on  this 
occasion  as  the  friend  of  Spain;  and,  of  course,  every  argument 
which  it  was  thought  might  have  influence,  or  ought  to  have  influ- 
ence, either  on  Russia  or  Spain,  was  suggested  in  the  correspon- 
dence. Among  other  things,  the  probable  loss  to  Spain,  of  Cuba 
and  Porto  Rico,  was  urged;  and  the  question  was  asked,  how  it  was, 
or  could  be,  expected  by  Spain,  that  the  United  States  could  inter- 
fere, to  prevent  Mexico  and  Colombia  from  taking  those  Islands 
from  her,  since  she  was  their  enemy,  in  a  public  war,  and  since  she 
pertinaciously,  and  unreasonably,  as  we  think,  insists  on  maintaining 
the  war;  and  since  these  Islands  offered  an  obvious  object  of  attack? 
Was  not  this,  sir,  a  very  proper  argument  to  be  urged  to  Spain  ? 
A  copy  of  this  despatch,  it  seems,  was  sent  to  the  Senate,  in  confi- 
dence. It  has  not  been  published  by  the  Executive.  Now,  the 
alleged  inconsistency  is,  that,  notwithstanding  this  letter,  the  Presi- 
dent has  interfered  to  dissuade  Mexico  and  Colombia  from  attack- 
ing Cuba;  that,  finding  or  thinking  that  those  States  meditated  such 
a  purpose,  this  government  has  urged  them  to  desist  from  it.  Sir, 
was  ever  anything  more  unreasonable  than  this  charge?  Was  it 
not  proper,  that,  to  produce  the  desired  result  of  peace,  our  govern- 
ment should  address  different  motives  to  the  different  parties  in  the 
war?  Was  it  not  its  business  to  set  before  each  party  its  dangers 
and  its  difficulties  in  pursuing  the  war?  And  if,  now,  by  anything 
unexpected,  these  respective  correspondences  have  become  public, 
are  these  different  views,  addressed  thus  to  different  parties,  and 
with  different  objects,  to  be  relied  on  as  proof  of  inconsistency? 
It  is  the  strangest  accusation  ever  heard  of.  No  government,  not 
wholly  destitute  of  common  sense,  would  have  acted  otherwise. 
We  urged  the  proper  motives  to  both  parties.  To  Spain  we  urged 
the  probable  loss  of  Cuba;  we  showed  her  the  dangers  of  its  cap- 
ture by  the  new  States;  and  we  asked  her  to  inform  us  on  what 
ground  it  was,  that  we  could  interfere  to  prevent  such  capture,  since 
44 


346 

she  was  at  war  with  these  states,  and  they  had  an  unquestionable 
right  to  attack  her  in  any  of  her  territories;  and  especially  she  was 
asked,  how  she  could  expect  good  offices  from  us,  on  this  occasion, 
since  she  fully  understood  our  opinion  to  be,  that  she  was  persisting 
in  the  war  without,  or  beyond,  all  reason,  and  with  a  sort  of  des- 
peration. This  was  the  appeal  made  to  the  good  sense  of  Spain, 
through  Russia.  But,  soon  afterwards,  having  reason  to  suspect 
that  Colombia  and  Mexico  were  actually  preparing  to  attack  Cuba, 
and  knowing  that  such  an  event  would  most  seriously  affect  us,  our 
government  remonstrated  against  such  meditated  attack,  and  to  the 
present  time  it  has  not  been  made.  In  all  this,  who  sees  anything 
either  improper  or  inconsistent?  For  myself,  I  think  the  course 
pursued  showed  a  watchful  regard  to  our  own  interest,  and  is  wholly 
free  from  any  imputation,  either  of  impropriety,  or  inconsistency. 

There  are  other  subjects,  sir,  in  the  President's  message,  which 
have  been  discussed  in  the  debate,  but  on  which  I  shall  not  detain 
the  Committee. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that  from  the  commencement  of  our  govern- 
ment, it  has  been  its  object  to  improve  and  simplify  the  principles  of 
national  intercourse.  It  may  well  be  thought  a  fit  occasion  to  urge 
these  improved  principles,  at  a  moment  when  so  many  new  States 
are  coming  into  existence,  untrammeled,  of  course,  with  previous 
and  long  established  connexions  or  habits.  Some  hopes  of  benefit, 
connected  with  these  topics,  are  suggested  in  the  message. 

The  abolition  of  private  war  on  the  ocean,  is  also  among  the  sub- 
jects of  possible  consideration.  This  is  not  the  first  time  that  that 
subject  has  been  mentioned.  The  late  President  took  occasion  to 
enforce  the  considerations  which  he  thought  recommended  it.  For 
one,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  how  far  such  abolition  may  be  practi- 
cable, or  how  far  it  ought  to  be  pursued;  but  there  are  views  belong- 
ing to  the  subject,  which  have  not  been,  in  any  degree,  answered 
or  considered,  in  this  discussion. 

Sir,  it  is  not  always  the  party  that  has  the  power  of  employing 
the  largest  military  marine,  that  enjoys  the  advantage  by  authorising 
privateers  in  war.  It  is  not  enough  that  there  are  brave  and  gal- 
lant captors;  there  must  be  something  to  be  captured.  Suppose,  sir, 
a  war  between  ourselves  and  any  one  of  the  new  States  of  South 
America  were  now  existing,  who  would  lose  most,  by  the  practice 
of  privateering,  in  such  a  war?  There  would  be  nothing  for  us  to 
attack;  while  the  means  of  attacking  us  would  flow  to  our  enemies 
from  every  part  of  the  world.  Capital,  ships,  and  men,  would  be 
abundant  in  all  their  ports,  and  our  commerce,  spread  over  every 
sea,  would  be  the  destined  prey.  So,  again,  if  war  should  unhap- 
pily spring  up  among  those  States  themselves,  might  it  not  be  for 
our  interest,  as  being  likely  to  be  much  connected  by  intercourse 
with  all  parties,  that  our  commerce  should  be  free  from  the  visitation 
and  search  of  private  armed  ships;  one  of  the  greatest  vexations  to 
neutral  commerce  in  time  of  war?  These,  sir,  are  some  of  the  con- 
siderations belonging  to  this  subject.  I  have  mentioned  them  only 
to  show  that  they  well  deserve  serious  attention. 

I  have  not  intended  to  reply  to  the  many  observations  which  have 
been  submitted  to  us,  on  the  message  of  the  President  to  this  House, 


347 

or  that  to  the  Senate.  Certainly  I  am  of  opinion,  that  some  of  those 
observations  merited  an  answer,  and  they  have  been  answered  by 
others.%  On  two  points  only  will  I  make  a  remark.  It  has  been 
said,  and  often  repeated,  that  the  President  in  his  message  to  the 
Senate,  has  spoken  of  his  own  power  in  regard  to  missions,  in  terms 
which  the  Constitution  does  not  warrant.  If  gentlemen  will  turn 
to  the  message  of  President  Washington,  relative  to  the  mission  to 
Lisbon,  in  the  10th  vol.  of  State  Papers,  they  will  see  almost  the 
exact  form  of  expression  used  in  this  case.  The  other  point,  on 
which  I  would  make  a  remark,  is  the  allegation,  that  an  unfair  use 
has  been  made  in  the  argument  of  the  message,  of  General  Wash- 
ington's Farewell  Address.  There  would  be  no  end,  sir,  to  com- 
ments and  criticisms,  of  this  sort,  if  they  were  to  be  pursued.  I  only 
observe,  that,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the  argument  of  the  message,  and 
its  use  of  the  Farewell  Address,  are  not  fairly  understood.  It  is 
not  attempted  to  be  inferred  from  the  Farewell  Address,  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  Washington,  we  ought  now  to  have  allian- 
ces with  foreign  States.  No  such  thing.  The  Farewell  Address 
recommends  to  us,  to  abstain  as  much  as  possible  from  all  sorts 
of  political  connexion  with  the  States  of  Europe,  alleging,  as  the 
reason  for  this  advice,  that  Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests 
of  her  own,  separate  from  ours,  and  with  which  we  have  no  natural 
connexion.  Now  the  message  argues,  and  argues  truly,  that  the 
new  South  American  States,  not  having  a  set  of  interests  of  their 
own  growing  out  of  the  balance  of  power,  family  alliances,  8cc, 
separate  from  ours,  in  the  same  manner,  and  to  the  same  degree, 
as  the  primary  interests  of  Europe  were  represented  to  be;  this 
part  of  the  Farewell  Address,  aimed  at  those  separate  interests 
expressly,  did  not  apply  in  this  case.  But  does  the  message  in- 
fer from  this  the  propriety  of  alliances  with  these  new  States?  Far 
from  it.  It  infers  no  such  thing.  On  the  contrary,  it  disclaims  all 
such  purpose. 

There  is  one  other  point,  sir,  on  which  common  justice  requires  a 
word  to  be  said.  It  has  been  alleged  that  there  are  material  differ- 
ences, as  to  the  papers  sent  respectively  to  the  two  Houses.  All 
this,  as  it  seems  to  me,  may  be  easily  and  satisfactorily  explained. 
In  the  first  place,  the  instructions  of  May,  1823,  which,  it  is  said, 
were  not  sent  to  the  Senate,  were  instructions  on  which  a  treaty  had 
been  already  negotiated;  which  treaty  had  been  subsequently  ratifi- 
ed by  the  Senate.  It  may  be  presumed,  that  when  the  treaty  was 
sent  to  the  Senate,  the  instructions  accompanied  it;  and  if  so,  they 
were  actually  already  before  the  Senate;  and  this  accounts  for  one 
of  the  alleged  differences.  In  the  next  place,  the  letter  to  Mr.  Mid- 
dleton,  in  Russia,  not  sent  to  the  House,  but  now  published  by  the 
Senate,  is  such  a  paper  as  possibly  the  President  might  not  think 
proper  to  make  public.  There  is  evident  reason  for  such  an  infer- 
ence. And,  lastly,  the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Brown,  sent  here, 
but  not  to  the  Senate,  appears,  from  its  date,  to  have  been  received 
after  the  communication  to  the  Senate.  Probably  when  sent  to  us, 
it  was  also  sent,  by  another  message,  to  that  body. 

These  observations,  sir,  are  tedious  and  uninteresting.  I  am  glad 
to  be  through  with  them.     And  here  I  might  terminate  my  remarks, 


348 

and  relieve  the  patience,  now  long  and  heavily  taxed,  of  the  Com- 
mittee. But  there  is  one  part  of  the  discussion,  on  which  I  must 
ask  to  be  indulged  with  a  few  observations. 

Pains,  sir,  have  been  taken  by  the  honorable  member  from  Vir- 
ginia, to  prove  that  the  measure  now  in  contemplation,  and,  indeed, 
the  whole  policy  of  the  government  respecting  South  America,  is 
the  unhappy  result  of  the  influence  of  a  gentleman  formerly  filling 
the  chair  of  this  House.  To  make  out  this,  he  has  referred  to  cer- 
tain speeches  of  that  gentleman  delivered  here.  He  charges  him 
with  having  become  himself  affected  at  an  early  day  with  what  he  is 
pleased  to  call  the  South  American  fever;  and  with  having  infused 
its  baneful  influence  into  the  whole  councils  of  the  country. 

If,  sir,  it  be  true,  that  that  gentleman,  prompted  by  an  ardent  love 
of  civil  liberty,  felt  earlier  than  others,  a  proper  sympathy  for  the 
struggling  colonies  of  South  America;  or  that,  acting  on  the  maxim, 
that  revolutions  do  not  go  backward,  he  had  the  sagacity  to  foresee, 
earlier  than  others,  the  successful  termination  of  those  struggles;  if, 
thus  feeling,  and  thus  perceiving,  it  fell  to  him  to  lead  the  willing  or 
unwilling  councils  of  his  country,  in  her  manifestations  of  kindness 
to  the  new  governments,  and  in  her  seasonable  recognition  of  their 
independence;  if  it  be  this  which  the  honorable  member  imputes  to 
him;  if  it  be  by  this  course  of  public  conduct  that  he  has  identified 
his  name  with  the  cause  of  South  American  liberty,  he  ought  to  be 
esteemed  one  of  the  most  fortunate  men  of  the  age.  If  all  this  be, 
as  is  now  represented,  he  has  acquired  fame  enough.  It  is  enough 
for  any  man,  thus  to  have  connected  himself  with  the  greatest  events 
of  the  age  in  which  he  lives,  and  to  have  been  foremost  in  measures 
which  reflect  high  honor  on  his  country,  in  the  judgment  of  man- 
kind. Sir,  it  is  always  with  great  reluctance  that  I  am  drawn  to 
speak,  in  my  place  here,  of  individuals;  but  I  could  not  forbear  what 
I  have  now  said,  when  I  hear,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and 
in  this  land  of  free  spirits,  that  it  is  made  matter  of  imputation  and 
of  reproach,  to  have  been  first  to  reach  forth  the  hand  of  welcome 
and  of  succour  to  new-born  nations,  struggling  to  obtain,  and  to  en- 
joy, the  blessings  of  liberty. 

We  are  told  that  the  country  is  deluded  and  deceived  by  cabalis- 
tic words.  Cabalistic  words!  If  we  express  an  emotion  of  pleas- 
ure at  the  results  of  this  great  action  of  the  spirit  of  political  liberty; 
if  we  rejoice  at  the  birth  of  new  Republican  nations,  and  express 
our  joy  by  the  common  terms  of  regard  and  sympathy;  if  we  feel  and 
signify  high  gratification  that,  throughout  this  whole  continent,  men 
are  now  likely  to  be  blessed  by  free  and  popular  institutions;  and  if, 
in  the  uttering  of  these  sentiments,  we  happen  to  speak  of  sister 
Republics;  of  the  great  American  family  of  nations;  or  of  the  polit- 
ical system  and  forms  of  government  of  this  hemisphere,  then  in- 
deed, it  seems,  we  deal  in  senseless  jargon,  or  impose  on  the  judg- 
ment and  feeling  of  the  community  by  cabalistic  words!  Sir,  what 
is  meant  by  this?  Is  it  intended  that  the  People  of  the  United  States 
ought  to  be  totally  indifferent  to  the  fortunes  of  these  new  neigh- 
bours? Is  no  change,  in  the  lights  in  which  we  are  to  view  them, 
to  be  wrought,  by  their  having  thrown  off  foreign  dominion,  establish- 


349 

ed  independence,  and  instituted,  on  our  very  borders,  republican 
governments,  essentially  after  our  own  example  ? 

Sir,  I  do  not  wish  to  overrate,  I  do  not  overrate,  the  progress  of 
these  new  States  in  the  great  work  of  establishing  a  well-secured 
popular  liberty.  I  know  that  to  be  a  great  attainment,  and  I  know 
they  are  but  pupils  in  the  school.  But,  thank  God,  they  are  in  the 
school.  They  are  called  to  meet  difficulties,  such  as  neither  we 
nor  our  fathers  encountered.  For  these,  we  ought  to  make  large 
allowances.  What  have  we  ever  known  like  the  colonial  vassalage 
of  these  States?  When  did  we  or  our  ancestors,  feel,  like  them, 
the  weight  of  a  political  despotism  that  presses  men  to  the  earth,  or 
of  that  religious  intolerance  which  would  shut  up  heaven  to  all  but 
the  bigoted?  Sir,  we  sprung  from  another  stock.  We  belong  to 
another  race.  We  have  known  nothing — we  have  felt  nothing  of 
the  political  despotism  of  Spain,  nor  of  the  heat  of  her  fires  of  in- 
tolerance. No  rational  man  expects  that  the  South  can  run  the 
same  rapid  career  as  the  North;  or  that  an  insurgent  province  of 
Spain  is  in  the  same  condition  as  the  English  colonies,  when  they 
first  asserted  their  independence.  There  is,  doubtless,  much  more 
to  be  done,  in  the  first  than  in  the  last  case.  But  on  that  account 
the  honor  of  the  attempt  is  not  less;  and  if  all  difficulties  shall  be 
in  time  surmounted,  it  will  be  greater.  The  work  may  be  more 
arduous — it  is  not  less  noble,  because  there  may  be  more  of  igno- 
rance to  enlighten;  more  of  bigotry  to  subdue;  more  of  prejudice 
to  eradicate.  If  it  be  a  weakness  to  feel  a  strong  interest  in  the 
success  of  these  great  revolutions,  I  confess  myself  guilty  of  that 
weakness.  If  it  be  weak  to  feel  that  I  am  an  American,  to  think 
that  recent  events  have  not  only  opened  new  modes  of  intercourse, 
but  have  created  also  new  grounds  of  regard  and  sympathy  between 
ourselves  and  our  neighbours;  if  it  be  weak  to  feel  that  the  South, 
in  her  present  state,  is  somewhat  more  emphatically  a  part  of  Amer- 
ica, than  when  she  lay  obscure,  oppressed,  and  unknown,  under  the 
grinding  bondage  of  a  foreign  power;  if  it  be  weak  to  rejoice,  when, 
even  in  any  corner  of  the  earth,  human  beings  are  able  to  get  up 
from  beneath  oppression,  to  erect  themselves,  and  to  enjoy  the  pro- 
per happiness  of  their  intelligent  nature;  if  this  be  weak,  it  is  a 
weakness  from  which  I  claim  no  exemption. 

A  day  of  solemn  retribution  now  visits  the  once  proud  monarchy 
of  Spain.  The  prediction  is  fulfilled.  The  spirit  of  Montezuma 
and  of  the  Incas  might  now  well  say, 

"  Art  thou,  too,  fallen,  Iberia  1    Do  we  see 
The  robber  and  the  murderer  weak  as  we  1 
Thou  !  that  has  wasted  earth  and  dared  despise 
Alike  the  wrath  and  mercy  of  the  skies, 
Thy  pomp  is  in  the  grave ;  thy  glory  laid 
Low  in  the  pit  thine  avarice  has  made." 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  detain  you  only  with  one  more  reflection 
on  this  subject.  We  cannot  be  so  blind — we  cannot  so  shut  up  our 
senses,  and  smother  our  faculties,  as  not  to  see,  that  in  the  progress 
and  the  establishment  of  South  American  liberty,  our  own  example 
has  been  among  the  most  stimulating  causes.     In  their  emergen- 

FF 


350 

cies,  they  have  looked  to  our  experience;  in  their  political  institu- 
tions, they  have  followed  our  models;  in  their  deliberations,  they 
have  invoked  the  presiding  spirit  of  our  own  liberty.  They  have 
looked  steadily,  in  every  adversity,  to  the  great  northern  light. 
In  the  hour  of  bloody  conflict,  they  have  remembered  the  fields 
which  have  been  consecrated  by  the  blood  of  our  own  fathers;  and 
when  they  have  fallen,  they  have  wished  only  to  be  remembered, 
with  them,  as  men  who  had  acted  their  parts  bravely,  for  the  cause 
of  liberty  in  the  Western  World. 

Sir,  I  have  done.  If  it  be  weakness  to  feel  the  sympathy  of 
one's  nature  excited  for  such  men,  in  such  a  cause,  I  am  guilty  of 
that  weakness.  If  it  be  prudence  to  meet  their  proffered  civility, 
not  with  reciprocal  kindness,  but  with  coldness  or  with  insult,  I 
choose  still  to  follow  where  natural  impulse  leads,  and  to  give  up 
that  false  and  mistaken  prudence,  for  the  voluntary  sentiments  of 
my  heart. 


SPEECH 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  BILL  FOR  THE 
RELIEF  OF  THE  SURVIVING  OFFICERS  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 
APRIL  25,  1828. 

It  has  not  been  my  purpose  to  take  any  part  in  the  discussion  of 
this  bill.  My  opinions  in  regard  to  its  general  object,  I  hope  are 
well  known;  and  I  had  intended  to  content  myself  with  a  steady  and 
persevering  vote  in  its  favor.  But,  when  the  moment  of  final  decis- 
ion has  come,  and  the  division  is  so  likely  to  be  nearly  equal,  I  feel 
it  to  be  a  duty  to  put  not  only  my  own  vote,  but  my  own  earnest 
wishes,  also,  and  my  fervent  entreaties  to  others,  into  the  doubtful 
scale. 

It  must  be  admitted,  sir,  that  the  persons  for  whose  benefit  this 
bill  is  designed,  are,  in  some  respects,  peculiarly  unfortunate.  They 
are  compelled  to  meet  not  only  objections  to  the  principle,  but,  which- 
ever way  they  turn  themselves,  embarrassing  objections  also  to 
details.  One  friend  hesitates  at  this  provision,  and  another  at  that; 
while  those  who  are  not  friends  at  all,  of  course  oppose  everything, 
and  propose  nothing.  When  it  was  contemplated,  heretofore,  to 
give  the  petitioners  an  outright  sum,  in  satisfaction  of  their  claim, 
then  the  argument  was,  among  other  things,  that  the  treasury  could 
not  bear  so  heavy  a  draught  on  its  means,  at  the  present  moment. 

The  plan  is  accordingly  changed:  an  annuity  is  proposed;  and  then 
the  objection  changes  also;  and  it  is  now  said,  that  this  is  but  grant- 
ing pensions,  and  that  the  pension  system  has  already  been  carried 
too  far.  I  confess,  sir,  I  felt  wounded — deeply  hurt — at  the  obser- 
vations of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia.  "  So  then,"  said  he,  "  these 
modest  and  high-minded  gentlemen  take  a  pension  at  last!"  How  is 
it  possible,  that  a  gentleman  of  his  generosity  of  character,  and 
general  kindness  of  feeling,  can  indulge  in  such  a  tone  of  triumphant 
irony  towards  a  few  old,  gray  headed,  poor,  and  broken  warriors  of 
the  revolution!  There  is,  I  know,  something  repulsive  and  oppro- 
brious in  the  name  of  pension.  But,  God  forbid  that  I  should  taunt 
them  with  it!  With  grief,  heart-full  grief,  do  I  behold  the  necessity 
which  leads  these  veterans  to  accept  the  bounty  of  their  country,  in 
a  manner  not  the  most  agreeable  to  their  feelings.  Worn  out  and 
decrepit,  represented  before  us  by  those,  their  former  brothers  in 
arms,  who  totter  along  our  lobbies,  or  stand  leaning  on  their  crutches. 
I,  for  one,  would  most  gladly  support  such  a  measure  as  should  con- 


352 

suit  at  once  their  services,  their  years,  their  necessities,  and  the 
delicacy  of  their  sentiments.  I  would  gladly  give,  with  promptitude 
and  grace,  with  gratitude  and  delicacy,  that  which  merit  has  earned, 
and  necessity  demands. 

Sir,  what  are  the  objections  urged  against  this  bill?  Let  us  look 
at  them,  and  see  if  they  be  real;  let  us  weigh  them,  to  know  if  they 
be  solid.  For,  sir,  we  are  not  acting  on  a  slight  matter.  Nor  is 
what  we  do  likely  to  pass  unobserved  now,  or  to  be  forgotten  here- 
after. I  regard  the  occasion  as  one  full  of  interest  and  full  of 
responsibility.  Those  individuals,  the  little  remnant  of  a  gallant 
band,  whose  days  of  youth  and  manhood  were  spent  for  their  coun- 
try in  the  toils  and  dangers  of  the  field,  are  now  before  us,  poor 
and  old, — intimating  their  wants  with  reluctant  delicacy,  and  asking 
succour  from  their  country  with  decorous  solicitude.  How  we 
shall  treat  them,  it  behooves  us  well  to  consider,  not  only  for  their 
sake,  but  for  our  own  sake,  also,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  of 
the  country.  Whatever  we  do,  will  not  be  done  in  a  corner.  Our 
constituents  will  see  it;  the  people  will  see  it;  the  world  will  see  it. 

Let  us  candidly  examine,  then,  the  objections  which  have  been 
raised  to  this  bill;  with  a  disposition  to  yield  to  them,  if  from  neces- 
sity we  must;  but,  to  overcome  them,  if  in  fairness  we  can. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  said,  that  we  ought  not  to  pass  the  bill, 
because  it  will  involve  us  in  a  charge  of  unknown  extent.  We  are 
reminded,  that  when  the  general  pension  law  for  revolutionary  sol- 
diers passed,  an  expense  was  incurred  far  beyond  what  had  been 
contemplated;  that  the  estimate,  of  the  number  of  surviving  revolu- 
tionary soldiers,  proved  altogether  fallacious;  and  that,  for  aught  we 
know,  the  same  mistake  may  be  committed  now. 

Is  this  objection  well-founded  ?  Let  me  say,  in  the  first  place,  that 
if  one  measure,  right  in  itself,  has  gone  farther  than  it  was  intended 
to  be  carried,  for  want  of  accurate  provisions,  and  adequate  guards, 
this  may  furnish  a  very  good  reason  for  supplying  such  guards  and 
provisions  in  another  measure,  but  can  afford  no  ground  at  all  for 
rejecting  such  other  measure,  altogether,  if  it  be  in  itself  just  and 
necessary.  We  should  avail  ourselves  of  our  experience,  it  seems  to 
me,  to  correct  what  has  been  found  amiss;  and  not  draw  from  it  an 
undistinguishing  resolution  to  do  nothing,  merely  because  it  has 
taught  us,  that,  in  something  we  have  already  done,  we  have  acted 
with  too  little  care.  In  the  next  place,  does  the  fact  bear  out  this 
objection  ?  Is  there  any  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  number  of  the 
officers  who  will  be  benefited  by  this  bill,  and  in  estimating  the 
expense,  therefore,  which  it  will  create?  I  think  there  is  none. 
The  records  in  the  department  of  war,  and  the  treasury,  furnish  such 
evidence  as  that  there  is  no  danger  of  material  mistake.  The  dili- 
gence of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  has  enabled  him  to  lay  the 
facts,  connected  with  this  part  of  the  case,  so  fully  and  minutely 
before  the  Senate,  that  I  think  no  one  can  feel  serious  doubt.  Indeed, 
it  is  admitted  by  the  adversaries  of  the  bill,  that  this  objection  does 
not  apply  here  with  the  same  force  as  in  the  former  pension-law. 
It  is  admitted  that  there  is  a  greater  facility  in  this  case  than  in  that, 
in  ascertaining  the  number  and  names  of  those  who  will  be  entitled 
to  receive  that  bounty. 


353 

This  objection,  then,  is  not  founded  in  true  principle;  and  if  it 
were,  it  is  not  sustained  by  the  facts.  I  think  we  ought  not  to 
yield  to  it,  unless,  (which  I  know  is  not  the  sentiment  which  pervades 
the  Senate,)  feeling  that  the  measure  ought  not  to  pass,  we  still  pre- 
fer not  to  place  our  opposition  to  it  on  a  distinct  and  visible  ground, 
but  to  veil  it  under  vague  and  general  objections. 

In  the  second  place,  it  has  been  objected,  that  the  operation  of 
the  bill  will  be  unequal,  because  all  officers  of  the  same  rank  will  re- 
ceive equal  benefit  from  it,  although  they  entered  the  army  at  dif- 
ferent times,  and  were  of  different  ages.  Sir,  is  not  this  that  sort 
of  inequality  which  must  always  exist  in  every  general  provision? 
Is  it  possible  that  any  law  can  descend  into  such  particulars  ?  Would 
there  be  any  reason  why  it  should  do  so,  if  it  could?  The  bill  is 
intended  for  those,  who,  being  in  the  Army  in  October,  1780,  then 
received  a  solemn  promise  of  half-pay  for  life,  on  condition  that 
they  would  continue  to  serve  through  the  war.  Their  ground  of 
merit,  is,  that  whensoever  they  had  joined  the  army,  being  thus  so- 
licited by  their  country  to  remain  in  it,  they  at  once  went  for  the 
whole;  they  fastened  their  fortunes  to  the  standards  which  they  bore, 
and  resolved  to  continue  their  military  service  till  it  should  termi- 
nate either  in  their  country's  success  or  in  their  own  deaths.  This 
is  their  merit  and  their  ground  of  claim.  How  long  they  had  been 
already  in  service,  is  immaterial  and  unimportant.  They  were  then 
in  service;  the  salvation  of  their  country  depended  on  their  contin- 
uing in  that  service.  Congress  saw  this  imperative  necessity,  and 
earnestly  solicited  them  to  remain,  and  promised  the  compensation. 
They  saw  the  necessity,  also,  and  they  yielded  to  it. 

But,  again,  it  is  said  that  the  present  time  is  not  auspicious.  The 
bill,  it  is  urged,  should  not  pass  now.  The  venerable  member  from 
North  Carolina  says,  as  I  understood  him,  that  he  would  be  almost 
as  willing  that  the  bill  should  pass  at  some  other  session,  as  be  dis- 
cussed at  this.  He  speaks  of  the  distresses  of  the  country  at  the 
present  moment,  and  of  another  bill,  now  in  the  Senate,  having,  as 
he  thinks,  the  effect  of  laying  new  taxes  upon  the  people.  He  is 
for  postponement.  But  it  appears  to  me,  with  entire  respect  for  the 
honourable  member,  that  this  is  one  of  the  cases  least  of  all  fit  for 
postponement.  It  is  not  a  measure,  that,  if  omitted  this  year,  may 
as  well  be  done  next.  Before  next  year  comes,  those  who  need  the 
relief  may  be  beyond  its  reach.  To  postpone  for  another  year,  an 
annuity  to  persons  already  so  aged;  an  annuity,  founded  on  the  mer- 
it of  services  which  were  rendered  half  a  century  ago;  to  postpone, 
for  another  whole  year,  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  deserving  men, — pro- 
posing not  aggrandizement  but  support;  not  emolument  but  bread; 
is  a  mode  of  disposing  of  it,  in  which  I  cannot  concur. 

But  it  is  argued,  in  the  next  place,  that  the  bill  ought  not  to  pass, 
because  those  who  have  spoken  in  its  favor  have  placed  it  on  dif- 
ferent grounds.  They  have  not  agreed,  it  is  said,  whether  it  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  right,  or  matter  of  gratuity,  or  bounty. 
Is  there  weight  in  this  objection?  If  some  think  the  grant  ought  to 
be  made,  as  an  exercise  of  judicious  and  well  deserved  bounty,  does 
it  weaken  that  ground  that  others  think  it  founded  in  strict  right, 
and  that  we  cannot  refuse  it  without  manifest  and  palpable  injustice? 

45  FF* 


354 

Or,  is  it  strange,  that  those  who  feel  the  legal  justice  of  the  claim, 
should  address  to  those  who  do  not  feel  it,  considerations  of  a  dif- 
ferent character,  but  fit  to  have  weight,  and  which  they  hope  may 
have  weight?  Nothing  is  more  plain  and  natural  than  the  course 
which  this  application  has  taken.  The  applicants,  themselves,  have 
placed  it  on  the  ground  of  equity  and  law.  They  advert  to  the 
resolve  of  1780,  to  the  commutation  of  1783,  and  to  the  mode  of  fund- 
ing the  certificates.  They  stand  on  their  contract.  This  is  perfect- 
ly natural.  On  that  basis,  they  can  wield  the  argument  themselves. 
Of  what  is  required  by  justice  and  equity,  they  may  reason  even 
in  their  own  case.  But  when  the  application  is  placed  on  different 
grounds;  when  personal  merit  is  to  be  urged,  as  the  foundation  of 
a  just  and  economical  bounty;  when  services  are  to  be  mentioned; 
privations  recounted;  pains  enumerated;  and  wounds  and  scars 
counted;  the  discussion  necessarily  devolves  to  other  hands.  In  all 
that  we  have  seen  from  these  officers  in  the  various  papers  present- 
ed by  them,  it  cannot  but  be  obvious  to  every  one,  how  little  is  said 
of  personal  merit,  and  how  exclusively  they  confine  themselves  to 
what  they  think  their  rights  under  the  contract. 

I  must  confess,  sir,-  that  principles  of  equity,  which  appear  to  me 
as  plain  as  the  sun,  are  urged  by  the  memorialists  themselves  with 
great  caution,  and  much  qualification.  They  advance  their  claim 
of  right,  without  extravagance  or  overstraining;  and  they  submit  to 
it  the  unimpassioned  sense  of  justice  of  the  Senate. 

For  myself,  I  am  free  to  say,  that  if  it  were  a  case  between  indi- 
vidual and  individual,  I  think  the  officers  would  be  entitled  to  relief 
in  a  court  of  equity.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  such  is  my  opinion. 
My  reasons  are,  that  I  do  not  think  they  had  a  fair  option,  in  regard 
to  the  commutation  of  half-pay.  I  do  not  think  it  was  fairly  in  their 
power  to  accept  or  reject  that  offer.  The  condition  they  were  in, 
and  the  situation  of  the  country,  compelled  them  to  submit  to  what- 
ever was  proposed.  In  the  next  place  it  seems  to  me  too  evident 
to  be  denied,  that  the  five  years'  full  pay  was  never  really  and  fully 
made  to  them.  A  formal  compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  contract, 
not  a  real  compliance,  is  at  most  all  that  was  ever  done.  For  these 
reasons,  I  think,  in  an  individual  case,  law  and  equity  would  reform 
the  settlement.  The  conscience  of  chancery  would  deal  with  this 
case  as  with  other  cases  of  hard  bargains;  of  advantages  obtained 
by  means  of  inequality  of  situation;  of  acknowledged  debts,  com- 
pounded from  necessity,  or  compromised  without  satisfaction.  But, 
although  such  would  be  my  views  of  this  claim,  as  between  man 
and  man,  I  do  not  place  my  vote  for  this  bill  on  that  ground.  I  see 
the  consequence  of  admitting  the  claim,  on  the  foundation  of  strict 
right.  I  see  at  once,  that,  on  that  ground,  the  heirs  of  the  dead 
would  claim,  as  well  as  the  living;  and  that  other  public  creditors, 
as  well  as  these  holders  of  commutation  certificates,  would  also  have 
whereof  to  complain.  I  know  it  is  altogether  impossible  to  open 
the  accounts  of  the  revolution,  and  to  think  of  doing  justice  to 
everybody.  Much  of  suffering  there  necessarily  was,  that  can  nev- 
er be  paid  for;  much  of  loss  that  can  never  be  repaired.  I  do  not, 
therefore,  for  myself,  rest  my  vote  on  grounds  leading  to  any  such 
consequences.     I  feel  constrained  to  say,  that  we  cannot  do,  and 


S55 

ought  not  to  think  of  doing,  everything  in  regard  to  revolutionary 
debts,  which  might  be  strictly  right,  if  the  whole  settlement  were 
now  to  be  gone  over  anew.  The  honorable  member  from  New 
York  [Mr.  Van  Buren,]  has  stated,  what  I  think  the  true  ground 
of  the  bill.  I  regard  it  as  an  act  of  discreet  and  careful  bounty, 
drawn  forth  by  meritorious  services,  and  by  personal  necessities.  I 
cannot  argue,  in  this  case,  with  the  technicality  of  my  profession; 
and  because  I  do  not  feel  able  to  allow  the  claim  on  the  ground  of 
mere  right,  I  am  not  willing,  for  that  reason,  to  nonsuit  the  petition- 
ers, as  not  having  made  out  their  case.  Suppose  we  admit,  as  I  do, 
that  on  the  ground  of  mere  right,  it  would  not  be  safe  to  allow  it; 
or,  suppose  that  to  be  admitted  for  which  others  contend,  that  there 
is  in  the  case  no  strict  right  upon  which,  under  any  circumstan- 
ces, the  claim  could  stand;  still,  it  does  not  follow  that  there  is  no 
reasonable  and  proper  foundation  for  it,  or  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
granted.  If  it  be  not  founded  on  strict  right,  it  is  not  to  be  regard- 
ed as  being,  for  that  reason  alone,  an  undeserved  gratuity,  or  the 
effusion  of  mere  good  will.  If  that  which  is  granted  be  not  always 
granted  on  the  ground  of  absolute  right,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is 
granted  from  merely  an  arbitrary  preference,  or  capricious  benefi- 
cence. In  most  cases  of  this  sort,  mixed  considerations  prevail, 
and  ought  to  prevail  Some  consideration  is  due  to  the  claim  of 
right;  much  to  that  of  merit  and  service;  and  more  to  that  of  per- 
sonal necessity.  If  I  knew  that  all  the  persons  to  be  benefited  by 
this  bill  were  in  circumstances  of  comfort  and  competency,  I  should 
not  support  it.  But  this  I  know  to  be  otherwise.  I  cannot  dwell 
with  propriety,  or  delicacy,  on  this  part  of  the  case;  but  I  feel  its 
force,  and  I  yield  to  it.  A  single  instance  of  affluence,  or  a  few 
cases  where  want  does  not  tread  close  on  those  who  are  themselves 
treading  close  on  the  borders  of  the  grave,  does  not  affect  the  gen- 
eral propriety  and  necessity  of  the  measure.  I  would  not  draw  this 
reason  for  the  bill  into  too  much  prominence.  We  all  know  it  exists; 
and  we  may,  I  think,  safely  act  upon  it,  without  so  discussing  it  as 
to  wound,  in  old,  but  sensitive,  and  still  throbbing  bosoms,  feelings 
which  education  inspired,  the  habits  of  military  life  cherished,  and  a 
just  self-respect  is  still  desirous  to  entertain.  I  confess  I  meet  this 
claim,  not  only  with  a  desire  to  do  something  in  favor  of  these 
officers,  but  to  do  it  in  a  manner  indicative  not  only  of  decorum  but 
of  deep  respect, — that  respect  which  years,  age,  public  service, 
patriotism,  and  broken  fortune,  command  to  spring  up  in  every  man- 
ly breast. 

It  is,  then,  sir,  a  mixed  claim,  of  faith  and  public  gratitude;  of 
justice  and  honorable  bounty;  of  merit  and  benevolence.  It  stands 
on  the  same  foundation  as  that  grant,  which  no  one  regrets,  of 
which  all  are  proud,  made  to  the  illustrious  foreigner,  who  showed 
himself  so  early,  and  has  proved  himself  so  constantly,  and  zealous- 
ly, a  friend  to  our  country. 

But  then,  again,  it  is  objected,  that  the  militia  have  a  claim  upon 
us;  that  they  fought  at  the  side  of  the  regular  soldiers,  and  ought 
to  share  in  the  country's  remembrance.  It  is  known  to  be  impossi- 
ble, to  carry  the  measure  to  such  an  extent  as  to  embrace  the  militia; 
and  it  is  plain,  too,  that  the  cases  are  different.     The  bill,  as  I  have 


356 

already  said,  confines  itself  to  those  who  served  not  occasionally, 
not  temporarily,  but  permanently;  who  allowed  themselves  to  be 
counted  on  as  men  who  were  to  see  the  contest  through,  last  as  long 
as  it  might;  and  who  have  made  the  phrase,  of  "  'listing  during  the 
war,"  a  proverbial  expression,  signifying  unalterable  devotion  to  our 
cause,  through  good  fortune  and  ill  fortune,  till  it  reaches  its  close. 
This  is  a  plain  distinction;  and  although,  perhaps,  I  might  wish  to 
do  more,  I  see  good  ground  to  stop  here,  for  the  present,  if  we  must 
stop  anywhere.  The  militia  who  fought  at  Concord,  at  Lexington, 
and  at  Bunker's  Hill,  have  been  alluded  to,  in  the  course  of  this 
debate,  in  terms  of  well-deserved  praise.  Be  assured,  sir,  there 
could  with  difficulty  be  found  a  man,  who  drew  his  sword,  or  carried 
his  musket,  at  Concord,  at  Lexington,  or  Bunker's  Hill,  who  would 
wish  you  to  reject  this  bill.  They  might  ask  you  to  do  more;  but 
never  to  refrain  from  doing  this.  Would  to  God  they  were  assem- 
bled here,  and  had  the  fate  of  the  bill  in  their  own  hands!  ■  Would 
to  God,  the  question  of  its  passage  was  to  be  put  to  them!  They 
would  affirm  it,  with  a  unity  of  acclamation  that  would  rend  the  roof 
of  the  capitol. 

I  support  the  measure,  then,  Mr.  President,  because  I  think  it  a 
proper  and  judicious  exercise  of  well-merited  national  bounty.  I 
think,  too,  the  general  sentiment  of  my  own  constituents,  and  of  the 
country,  is  in  favor  of  it.  I  believe  the  member  from  North  Caroli- 
na, himself,  admitted,  that  an  increasing  desire,  that  something  should 
be  done  for  the  revolutionary  officers,  manifested  itself  in  the  com- 
munity. The  bill  will  make  no  immediate  or  great  draught  on  the 
treasury.  It  will  not  derange  the  finances.  If  I  had  supposed  that 
the  state  of  the  treasury  would  have  been  urged  against  the  pas- 
sage of  this  bill,  I  should  not  have  voted  for  the  Delaware  break- 
water, because  that  might  have  been  commenced  next  year;  nor  for 
the  whole  of  the  sums  which  have  been  granted  for  fortifications;  for 
their  advancement,  with  a  little  more  or  little  less  of  rapidity,  is  not 
of  the  first  necessity.  But  the  present  case  is  urgent.  What  we 
do,  should  be  done  quickly. 

Mr.  President,  allow  me  to  repeat,  that  neither  the  subject,  nor 
the  occasion,  is  an  ordinary  one.  Our  own  fellow  citizens  do  not 
so  consider  it;  the  world  will  not  so  regard  it.  A  few  deserving 
soldiers  are  before  us,  who  served  their  country  faithfully  through 
a  seven  years'  war.  That  war  was  a  civil  war.  It  was  commenced 
on  principle,  and  sustained  by  every  sacrifice,  on  the  great  ground 
of  civil  liberty.  They  fought  bravely,  and  bled  freely.  The  cause 
succeeded,  and  the  country  triumphed.  But  the  condition  of  things 
did  not  allow  that  country,  sensible  as  it  was  to  their  services  and 
merits,  to  do  them  the  full  justice  which  it  desired.  It  could  not 
entirely  fulfil  its  engagements.  The  army  was  to  be  disbanded;  but 
it  was  unpaid.  It  was  to  lay  down  its  own  power;  but  there  was  no 
government  with  adequate  power  to  perform  what  had  been  promised 
to  it.  In  this  critical  moment,  what  is  its  conduct?  Does  it  dis- 
grace its  high  character?  Is  temptation  able  to  seduce  it?  Does 
it  speak  of  righting  itself?  Does  it  undertake  to  redress  its  own 
wrongs,  by  its  own  sword  ?     Does  it  lose  its  patriotism  in  hs  deep 


357 

sense  of  injury  and  injustice?  Does  military  ambition  cause  its  in- 
tegrity to  swerve?     Far,  far  otherwise. 

It  had  faithfully  served  and  saved  the  country;  and  to  that  coun- 
try it  now  referred,  with  unhesitating  confidence,  its  claim  and  its 
complaints.  It  laid  down  its  arms  with  alacrity;  it  mingled  itself 
with  the  mass  of  the  community;  and  it  waited  till,  in  better  times, 
and  under  a  new  government,  its  services  might  be  rewarded,  and 
the  promises  made  to  it  fulfilled.  Sir,  this  example  is  worth  more, 
far  more,  to  the  cause  of  civil  liberty,  than  this  bill  will  cost  us. 
We  can  hardly  recur  to  it  too  often,  or  dwell  on  it  too  much,  for 
the  honor  of  our  country,  and  of  its  defenders.  Allow  me  to  say 
again,  that  meritorious  service  in  civil  war  is  worthy  of  peculiar 
consideration;  not  only  because  there  is,  in  such  war,  usually  less 
power  to  restrain  irregularities,  but  because,  also,  they  expose  all 
prominent  actors  in  them,  to  different  kinds  of  danger.  It  is  rebel- 
lion, as  well  as  war.  Those  who  engage  in  it  must  look  not  only  to 
the  dangers  of  the  field,  but  to  confiscation  also,  and  attainder,  and 
ignominious  death.  With  no  efficient  and  settled  government,  either 
to  sustain  or  to  control  them,  and  with  every  sort  of  danger  before 
them,  it  is  great  merit  to  have  conducted  with  fidelity  to  the  coun- 
try, under  every  discouragement  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  uncon- 
querable bravery  towards  the  common  enemy  on  the  other.  So,  sir, 
the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  revolutionary  army  did  conduct. 

I  would  not,  and  do  not  underrate  the  services  or  the  sufferings 
of  others.  I  know  well,  that  in  the  revolutionary  contest,  all  made 
sacrifices,  and  all  endured  sufferings;  as  well  those  who  paid  for 
service,  as  those  who  performed  it.  I  know,  that,  in  the  records  of 
all  the  little  municipalities  of  New  England,  abundant  proof  exists, 
of  the  zeal  with  which  the  cause  was  espoused,  and  the  sacrifices 
with  which  it  was  cheerfully  maintained.  I  have  often  there  read, 
with  absolute  astonishment,  the  taxes,  the  contributions,  the  heavy 
subscriptions,  often  provided  for  by  disposing  of  the  absolute  neces- 
saries of  life;  by  which  enlistments  were  procured,  and  food  and 
clothing  furnished.  It  would  be,  sir,  to  these  same  municipalities, 
to  these  same  little  patriotic  councils  of  revolutionary  times,  that  I 
should  now  look,  with  most  assured  confidence,  for  a  hearty  sup- 
port of  what  this  bill  proposes.  There,  the  scale  of  revolutionary 
merit  stands  high.  There  are  still  those  living,  who  speak  of  the 
19th  of  April,  and  the  17th  of  June,  without  thinking  it  necessary 
to  add  the  year.  These  men,  one  and  all,  would  rejoice  to  find  that 
those  who  stood  by  the  country  bravely,  through  the  doubtful  and 
perilous  struggle  which  conducted  it  to  independence  and  glory,  had 
not  been  forgotten  in  the  decline  and  close  of  life. 

The  objects,  then,  sir,  of  the  proposed  bounty,  are  most  worthy 
and  deserving  objects.  The  services  which  they  rendered,  were 
in  the  highest  degree  useful  and  important.  The  country  to  which 
they  rendered  them,  is  great  and  prosperous.  They  have  lived  to 
see  it  glorious;  let  them  not  live  to  see  it  unkind.  For  me,  I  can 
give  them  but  my  vote,  and  my  prayers;  and  I  give  them  both  with 
my  whole  heart. 


SPEECHES 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  RESOLUTION 
OF  MR.  FOOTE  RESPECTING  THE  SALE,  &c.  OF  PUBLIC  LANDS. 
JAN.  1830. 

The  resolution  was  introduced  on  the  29th  of  December,  1829,  as  follows  : — 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be  instructed  to  inquire  and  report  the 
quantity  of  public  lands  remaining  unsold  within  each  State  and  Territory.  And  whether  it 
be  expedient  to  limit,  for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  only 
as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for  sale,  and  are  now  subject  to  entry  at  the  minimum 
price.  And,  also,  whether  the  office  of  Surveyor  General,  and  some  of  the  land  offices, 
may  not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to  the  public  interest ;  or  whether  it  be  expedient 
to  adopt  measures  to  hasten  the  sales  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  the  public  lands." 

On  the  18th  of  January,  Mr.  Benton  of  Missouri  addressed  the  Senate;  and  on  the  19th, 
Mr.  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina,  proceeded  in  the  debate,  and  spoke  at  considerable  length. 
After  he  had  concluded  Mr.  Webster  rose  to  reply,  but  gave  way,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Benton 
for  an  adjournment. 

On  the  20th,  Mr.  Webster  took  the  floor,  and  spoke  as  follows  : 

Nothing  has  been  farther  from  my  intention  than  to  take  any  part 
in  the  discussion  of  this  resolution.  It  proposes  only  an  inquiry  on 
a  subject  of  much  importance,  and  one  in  regard  to  which  it  might 
strike  the  mind  of  the  mover,  and  of  other  gentlemen,  that  inquiry 
and  investigation  would  be  useful.  Although  I  am  one  of  those  who 
do  not  perceive  any  particular  utility  in  instituting  the  inquiry,  I  have, 
nevertheless,  not  seen  that  harm  would  be  likely  to  result  from  adopt- 
ing the  resolution.  Indeed,  it  gives  no  new  powers  and  hardly  im- 
poses any  new  duty,  on  the  committee.  All  that  the  resolution  proposes 
should  be  done,  the  committee  is  quite  competent,  without  the  reso- 
lution, to  do  by  virtue  of  its  ordinary  powers.  But,  sir,  although 
I  have  felt  quite  indifferent  about  the  passing  of  the  resolution,  yet 
opinions  were  expressed  yesterday  on  the  general  subject  of  the 
public  lands,  and  on  some  other  subjects,  by  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  so  widely  different  from  my  own,  that  I  am  not  wil- 
ling to  let  the  occasion  pass  without  some  reply.  If  I  deemed  the 
resolution  as  originally  proposed  hardly  necessary,  still  less  do  I 
think  it  either  necessary  or  expedient  to  adopt  it,  since  a  second 
branch  has  been  added  to  it  to  day.  By  this  second  branch,  the  com- 
mittee is  to  be  instructed  to  inquire  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt 
measures  to  hasten  the  sales,  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys 
of  the  public  lands. 


359 

Now  it  appears,  that,  in  forty  years,  Mr.  President,  we  have  sold 
no  more  than  about  twenty  millions  of  acres  of  public  lands.  The 
annual  sales  do  not  now  exceed,  and  never  have  exceeded,  one  mil- 
lion of  acres.  A  million  a  year  is,  according  to  our  experience,  as 
much  as  the  increase  of  population  can  bring  into  settlement.  And 
it  appears,  also,  that  we  have,  at  this  moment,  sir,  surveyed  and  in 
the  market,  ready  for  sale,  two  hundred  and  ten  millions  of  acres,  or 
thereabouts.  All  this  vast  mass,  at  this  moment,  lies  on  our  hands, 
for  mere  want  of  purchasers.  Can  any  man,  looking  to  the  real  inter- 
ests of  the  country  and  the  people,  seriously  think  of  inquiring 
whether  we  ought  not  still  faster  to  hasten  the  public  surveys,  and 
to  bring,  still  more  and  more  rapidly,  other  vast  quantities  into  the 
market?  The  truth  is,  that  rapidly  as  population  has  increased,  the 
surveys  have,  nevertheless,  outran  our  wants.  There  are  more  lands 
than  purchasers.  They  are  now  sold  at  low  prices,  and  taken  up  as 
fast  as  the  increase  of  people  furnishes  hands  to  take  them  up. — It 
is  obvious,  that  no  artificial  regulation,  no  forcing  of  sales,  no  giv- 
ing away  of  the  lands  even,  can  produce  any  great  and  sudden  aug- 
mentation of  population.  The  ratio  of  increase,  though  great,  has 
yet  its  bounds.  Hands  for  labor  are  multiplied  only  at  a  certain 
rate.  The  lands  cannot  be  settled  but  by  settlers;  nor  faster  than 
settlers  can  be  found.  A  system,  if  now  adopted,  of  forcing  sales, 
at  whatever  prices,  may  have  the  effect  of  throwing  large  quantities 
into  the  hands  of  individuals,  who  would,  in  this  way,  in  time,  be- 
come themselves  competitors  with  the  government,  in  the  sale  of 
land.  My  own  opinion  has  uniformly  been,  that  the  public  lands 
should  be  offered  freely,  and  at  low  prices;  so  as  to  encourage  set- 
tlement and  cultivation  as  rapidly  as  the  increasing  population  of 
the  country  is  competent  to  extend  settlement  and  cultivation. 

Every  actual  settler  should  be  able  to  buy  good  land,  at  a  cheap 
rate;  but  on  the  other  hand,  speculation  by  individuals,  on  a  large 
scale,  should  not  be  encouraged,  nor  should  the  value  of  all  lands, 
sold  and  unsold,  be  reduced  to  nothing,  by  throwing  new  and  vast 
quantities  into  the  market  at  prices  merely  nominal. 

I  now  proceed,  sir,  to  some  of  the  opinions  expressed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  South  Carolina.  Two  or  three  topics  were  touched  by 
him,  in  regard  to  which  he  expressed  sentiments  in  which  I  do  not 
at  all  concur. 

In  the  first  place,  sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  spoke  of  the  whole 
course  and  policy  of  the  government,  towards  those  who  have  pur- 
chased and  settled  the  public  lands;  and  seemed  to  think  this  policy 
wrong.  He  held  it  to  have  been,  from  the  first,  hard  and  rigorous; 
he  was  of  opinion,  that  the  United  States  had  acted  towards  those 
who  had  subdued  the  western  wilderness,  in  the  spirit  of  a  step- 
mother; that  the  public  domain  had  been  improperly  regarded  as  a 
source  of  revenue;  and  that  we  had  rigidly  compelled  payment  for 
that  which  ought  to  have  been  given  away.  He  said  we  ought  to 
have  followed  the  analogy  of  other  governments,  which  had  acted 
on  a  much  more  liberal  system  than  ours,  in  planting  colonies.  He 
dwelt,  particularly,  upon  the  settlement  of  America  by  colonies 
from  Europe;  and  reminded  us,  that  their  governments  had  not  ex- 
acted from  those  colonists  payment  for  the  soil;  with  them,  he  said, 


360 

it  had  been  thought,  that  the  conquest  of  the  wilderness  was,  itself, 
an  equivalent  for  the  soil,  and  he  lamented  that  we  had  not  followed 
that  example,  and  pursued  the  same  liberal  course  towards  our  own 
emigrants  to  the  West. 

Now,  sir,  I  deny,  altogether,  that  there  has  been  anything  harsh 
or  severe,  in  the  policy  of  the  government  towards  the  new  states 
of  the  West.  On  the  contrary,  I  maintain,  that  it  has  uniformly 
pursued,  towards  those  states,  a  liberal  and  enlightened  system, 
such  as  its  own  duty  allowed  and  required;  and  such  as  their  inter- 
est and  welfare  demanded.  The  government  has  been  no  step- 
mother to  the  new  states.  She  has  not  been  careless  of  their  inter- 
ests, nor  deaf  to  their  requests;  but  from  the  first  moment,  when 
the  territories  which  now  form  those  states  were  ceded  to  the  union, 
down  to  the  time  in  which  I  am  now  speaking,  it  has  been  the  inva- 
riable object  of  the  government,  to  dispose  of  the  soil,  according  to 
the  true  spirit  of  the  obligation  under  which  it  received  it;  to  hasten 
its  settlement  and  cultivation,  as  far  and  as  fast  as  practicable;  and 
to  rear  the  new  communities  into  equal  and  independent  states,  at 
the  earliest  moment  of  their  being  able,  by  their  numbers,  to  form 
a  regular  government. 

I  do  not  admit,  sir,  that  the  analogy  to  which  the  gentleman  refers 
us,  is  just,  or  that  the  cases  are  at  all  similar.  There  is  no  resem- 
blance between  the  cases  upon  which  a  statesman  can  found  an 
argument.  The  original  North  American  colonists  either  fled  from 
Europe,  like  our  New  England  ancestors,  to  avoid  persecution,  or 
came  hither  at  their  own  charges,  and  often  at  the  ruin  of  their 
fortunes,  as  private  adventurers.  Generally  speaking,  they  de- 
rived neither  succour  nor  protection  from  their  governments  at 
home.  Wide,  indeed,  is  the  difference  between  those  cases  and 
ours.  From  the  very  origin  of  the  government,  these  western  lands, 
and  the  just  protection  of  those  who  had  settled  or  should  settle  on 
them,  have  been  the  leading  objects  in  our  policy,  and  have  led  to 
expenditures,  both  of  blood  and  treasure,  not  inconsiderable:  not 
indeed  exceeding  the  importance  of  the  object,  and  not  yielded 
grudgingly  or  reluctantly,  certainly;  but  yet  not  inconsiderable, 
though  necessary  sacrifices,  made  for  high  proper  ends.  The 
Indian  title  has  been  extinguished  at  the  expense  of  many  millions. 
Is  that  nothing  ?  There  is  still  a  much  more  material  consideration. 
These  colonists,  if  we  are  to  call  them  so,  in  passing  the  Alleghany, 
did  not  pass  beyond  the  care  and  protection  of  their  own  govern- 
ment. Wherever  they  went,  the  public  arm  was  still  stretched  over 
them.  A  parental  government  at  home  was  still  ever  mindful  of 
their  condition,  and  their  wants,  and  nothing  was  spared,  which  a 
just  sense  of  their  necessities  required.  Is  it  forgotten,  that  it  was 
one  of  the  most  arduous  duties  of  the  government,  in  its  earliest 
years,  to  defend  the  frontiers  against  the  northwestern  Indians  ? 
Are  the  sufferings  and  misfortunes  under  Harmar  and  St.  Clair, 
not  worthy  to  be  remembered?  Do  the  occurrences  connected  with 
these  military  efforts  show  an  unfeeling  neglect  of  western  interests? 
And  here,  sir,  what  becomes  of  the  gentleman's  analogy?  What 
English  armies  accompanied  our  ancestors  to  clear  the  forests  of  a 
barbarous  foe  ?     What  treasures  of  the  Exchequer  were  expended 


361 

in  buying  up  the  original  title  to  the  soil?  What  governmental  arm 
held  its  aegis  over  our  fathers'  heads,  as  they  pioneered  their  way 
in  the  wilderness?  Sir,  it  was  not  till  General  Wayne's  victory,  in 
1794,  that  it  could  be  said,  we  had  conquered  the  savages.  It  was 
not  till  that  period,  that  the  government  could  have  considered  itself 
as  having  established  an  entire  ability  to  protect  those  who  should 
undertake  the  conquest  of  the  wilderness.  And  here,  sir,  at  the 
epoch  of  1794,  let  us  pause,  and  survey  the  scene.  It  is  now  thirty- 
five  years  since  that  scene  actually  existed.  Let  us.  sir,  look  back, 
and  behold  it.  Over  all  that  is  now  Ohio,  there  then  stretched  one 
vast  wilderness,  unbroken,  except  by  two  small  spots  of  civilized 
culture,  the  one  at  Marietta,  and  the  other  at  Cincinnati.  At  these 
little  openings,  hardly  each  a  pin's  point  upon  the  map,  the  arm  of 
the  frontierman  had  levelled  the  forest,  and  let  in  the  sun.  These 
little  patches  of  earth,  and  themselves  almost  overshadowed  by  the 
overhanging  boughs  of  that  wilderness,  which  had  stood  and  per- 
petuated itself,  from  century  to  century,  ever  since  the  creation, 
were  all  that  had  then  been  rendered  verdant  by  the  hand  of  man.  In 
an  extent  of  hundreds,  and  thousands  of  square  miles,  no  other  sur- 
face of  smiling  green  attested  the  presence  of  civilisation.  The 
hunter's  path  crossed  mighty  rivers,  flowing  in  solitary  grandeur, 
whose  sources  lay  in  remote  and  unknown  regions  of  the  wilderness. 
It  struck,  upon  the  north,  on  a  vast  inland  sea,  over  which  the  win- 
try tempests  raged  as  on  the  ocean;  all  around  was  bare  creation. 
It  was  fresh,  untouched,  unbounded,  magnificent  wilderness.  And, 
sir,  what  is  it  now?  Is  it  imagination  only,  or  can  it  possibly  be 
fact,  that  presents  such  a  change,  as  surprises  and  astonishes  us, 
when  we  turn  our  eyes  to  what  Ohio  now  is?  Is  it  reality,  or  a 
dream,  that  in  so  short  a  period  even  as  thirty-five  years,  there  has 
sprung  up,  on  the  same  surface,  an  independent  state,  with  a  million 
of  people?  A  million  of  inhabitants  !  an  amount  of  population 
greater  than  that  of  all  the  cantons  of  Switzerland;  equal  to  one 
third  of  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  when  they  undertook  to 
accomplish  their  independence.  This  new  member  of  the  republic 
has  already  left  far  behind  her,  a  majority  of  the  old  states.  She  is 
now  by  the  side  of  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania;  and,  in  point  of  num- 
bers, will  shortly  admit  no  equal  but  New  York  herself.  If,  sir, 
we  may  judge  of  measures  by  their  results,  what  lessons  do  these 
facts  read  us,  upon  the  policy  of  the  government?  What  inferen- 
ces do  they  authorise,  upon  the  general  question  of  kindness,  or 
unkindness?  What  convictions  do  they  enforce,  as  to  the  wisdom 
and  ability,  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  folly  and  incapacity,  on  the  other, 
of  our  general  administration  of  western  affairs  ?  Sir,  does  it  not 
require  some  portion  of  self-respect  in  us,  to  imagine,  that  if  our 
light  had  shone  on  the  path  of  government,  if  our  wisdom  could 
have  been  consulted  in  its  measures,  a  more  rapid  advance  to  strength 
and  prosperity  would  have  been  experienced?  For  my  own  part, 
while  I  am  struck  with  wonder  at  the  success,  I  also  look  with  admi- 
ration at  the  wisdom  and  foresight  which  originally  arranged  and 
prescribed  the  system  for  the  settlement  of  the  public  domain.  Its 
operation  has  been,  without  a  moment's  interruption,  to  push  the  set- 
tlement of  the  western  country  to  the  full  extent  of  our  utmost  means. 
46  gg 


, 


362 

But,  sir,  to  return  to  the  remarks  of  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina.  He  says  that  Congress  has  sold  these  lands,  and 
put  the  money  into  the  treasury,  while  other  governments,  acting 
in  a  more  liberal  spirit,  gave  away  their  lands;  and  that  we  ought, 
also,  to  have  given  ours  away.  I  shall  not  stop  to  state  an  account 
between  our  revenues  derived  from  land,  and  our  expenditures  in 
Indian  treaties  and  Indian  wars.  But,  I  must  refer  the  honorable 
gentleman  to  the  origin  of  our  own  title  to  the  soil  of  these  territo- 
ries, and  remind  him  that  we  received  them  on  conditions,  and  un- 
der trusts,  which  would  have  been  violated  by  giving  the  soil  away. 
For  compliance  with  those  conditions,  and  the  just  execution  of 
those  trusts,  the  public  faith  was  solemnly  pledged.  The  public 
lands  of  the  United  States  have  been  derived  from  four,  principal 
sources.  First,  cessions  made  to  the  United  States  by  individual 
states,  on  the  recommendation  or  request  of  the  old  Congress.  Sec- 
ond. The  compact  with  Georgia,  in  1802.  Third.  The  purchase 
of  Louisiana  in  1803.  Fourth.  The  purchase  of  Florida,  in  1819 
Of  the  first  class,  the  most  important  was  the  cession  by  Virginia, 
of  all  her  right  and  title,  as  well  of  soil  as  jurisdiction,  to  all  the 
territory  within  the  limits  of  her  charter,  lying  to  the  northwest  of 
the  river  Ohio.  It  may  not  be  ill  timed  to  recur  to  the  causes  and 
occasions  of  this  and  the  other  similar  grants. 

When  the  war  of  the  revolution  broke  out,  a  great  difference  ex- 
isted in  different  states,  in  the  proportion  between  people  and  terri- 
tory. The  northern  and  eastern  states,  with  very  small  surfaces, 
contained  comparatively  a  thick  population,  and  there  was  generally 
within  their  limits,  no  great  quantity  of  waste  lands  belonging  to 
the  government,  or  the  crown  of  England.  On  the  contrary,  there 
were  in  the  southern  states,  in  Virginia  and  in  Georgia  for  example, 
extensive  public  domains,  wholly  unsettled,  and  belonging  to  the 
crown.  As  these  possessions  would  necessarily  fall  from  the  crown, 
in  the  event  of  a  prosperous  issue  of  the  war,  it  was  insisted  that 
they  ought  to  devolve  on  the  United  States,  for  the  good  of  the  whole. 
The  war,  it  was  argued,  was  undertaken  and  carried  on  at  the  com- 
mon expense  of  all  the  colonies;  its  benefits,  if  successful,  ought 
also  to  be  common;  and  the  property  of  the  common  enemy,  when 
vanquished,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  the  general  acquisition  of  all. 
While  yet  the  war  was  raging,  it  was  contended  that  Congress  ought 
to  have  the  power  to  dispose  of  vacant  and  unpatented  lands,  com- 
monly called  crown  lands,  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  war, 
and  for  other  public  and  general  purposes.  "  Reason  and  Justice," 
said  the  Assembly  of  New  Jersey,  in  1778,  "must  decide,  that  the 
property  which  existed  in  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  previous  to 
the  present  revolution,  ought  now  to  belong  to  the  Congress,  in  trust 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States.  They  have  fought  and 
bled  for  it,  in  proportion  to  their  respective  abilities,  and  therefore  the 
reward  ought  not  to  be  predilectionally  distributed.  Shall  such  states 
as  are  shut  out,  by  situation,  from  availing  themselves  of  the  least 
advantage  from  this  quarter,  be  left  to  sink  under  an  enormous  debt, 
whilst  others  are  enabled,  in  a  short  period,  to  replace  all  their  ex- 
penditures from  the  hard  earnings  of  the  whole  confederacy  ?" 


363 

Moved  by  these  considerations,  and  these  addresses  made  it, 
Congress  took  up  the  subject,  and  in  September,  1780,  recommen- 
ded to  the  several  states  in  the  union,  having  claims  to  western 
territory,  to  make  liberal  cessions  of  a  portion  thereof  to  the  Uni- 
ted States;  and  on  the  10th  of  October,  1780,  Congress  resolved, 
that  any  lands,  so  ceded  in  pursuance  of  their  preceding  recommen- 
dation, should  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  United 
States;  should  be  settled  and  formed  into  distinct  republican  states, 
to  become  members  of  the  Federal  union,  with  the  same  rights  of 
sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence  as  the  other  states;  and 
that  the  lands  should  be  granted,  or  settled,  at  such  times,  and  un- 
der such  regulations,  as  should  be  agreed  on  by  Congress.  Again 
in  September  1783,  Congress  passed  another  resolution,  expres- 
sing the  conditions  on  which  cessions  from  states  should  be  received; 
and  in  October  following,  Virginia  made  her  cession,  reciting  the 
resolution,  or  act,  of  September  preceding,  and  then  transferring  her 
title  to  her  northwestern  territory  to  the  United  States,  upon  the 
express  condition,  that  the  lands,  so  ceded,  should  be  considered  as 
a  common  fund  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  such  of  the  United  States 
as  had  become  or  should  become  members  of  the  confederation, 
Virginia  inclusive,  and  should  be  faithfully  and  bona  fide  disposed 
of  for  that  purpose,  and  for  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatever.  The 
grants  from  other  states  were  on  similar  conditions.  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  both  had  claims  to  western  lands,  and  both  relin- 
quished them  to  the  United  States  in  the  same  manner.  These 
grants  were  all  made  on  three  substantial  conditions  or  trusts.  First, 
that  the  ceded  territories  should  be  formed  into  states,  and  admit- 
ted in  due  time  into  the  union,  with  all  the  rights  belonging  to  other 
states.  Second,  that  the  lands  should  form  a  common  fund  to  be 
disposed  of  for  the  general  benefit  of  all  the  states.  Third,  that 
they  should  be  sold  and  settled,  at  such  time  and  in  such  manner  as 
Congress  should  direct. 

Now,  sir,  it  is  plain  that  Congress  never  has  been,  and  is  not  now, 
at  liberty  to  disregard  these  solemn  conditions.  For  the  fulfilment 
of  all  these  trusts,  the  public  faith  was,  and  is,  fully  pledged.  How, 
then,  would  it  have  been  possible  for  Congress,  if  it  had  been  so  dis- 
posed, to  give  away  these  public  lands?  How  could  they  have  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  other  governments,  if  there  had  been  such, 
and  considered  the  conquest  of  the  wilderness  an  equivalent  com- 
pensation for  the  soil? — The  states  had  looked  to  this  territory,  per- 
haps too  sanguinely,  as  a  fund  out  of  which  means  were  to  come  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  the  war.  It  had  been  received  as  a  fund,  as 
a  fund  Congress  had  bound  itself  to  apply  it.  To  have  given  it  away, 
would  have  defeated  all  the  objects  which  Congress,  and  particular 
states,  had  had  in  view,  in  asking  and  obtaining  the  cession,  and 
would  have  plainly  violated  the  conditions,  which  the  ceding  states 
attached  to  their  own  grants. 

The  gentleman  admits,  that  the  lands  cannot  be  given  away  until 
the  national  debt  is  paid;  because,  to  a  part  of  that  debt  they  stand 
pledged.  But  this  is  not  the  original  pledge.  There  is,  so  to  speak, 
an  earlier  mortgage.  Before  the  debt  was  funded,  at  the  moment  of 
the  cession  of  the  lands,  and  by  the  very  terms  of  that  cession,  every 


364 

state  in  the  union  obtained  an  interest  in  them,  as  in  a  common 
fund.  Congress  has  uniformly  adhered  to  this  condition.  It  has 
proceeded  to  sell  the  lands,  and  to  realize  as  much  from  them,  as  was 
compatible  with  the  other  trusts  created  by  the  same  deeds  of  cession. 
One  of  these  deeds  of  trust,  as  I  have  already  said,  was,  that  the 
lands  should  be  sold  and  settled,  at  such  time  or  manner  as  Congress 
shall  direct.  The  government  has  always  felt  itself  bound,  in  regard 
to  sale  and  settlement,  to  exercise  its  own  best  judgment,  and  not  to 
transfer  the  discretion  to  others.  It  has  not  felt  itself  at  liberty  to 
dispose  of  the  soil,  therefore,  in  large  masses,  to  individuals,  thus 
leaving  to  them  the  time  and  manner  of  settlement.  It  had  stipula- 
ted to  use  its  own  judgment.  If,  for  instance,  in  order  to  rid  itself 
of  the  trouble  of  forming  a  system  for  the  sale  of  those  lands,  and  go- 
ing into  detail,  it  had  sold  the  whole  of  what  is  now  Ohio,  in  one  mass, 
to  individuals,  or  companies,  it  would  clearly  have  departed  from  its 
just  obligations.  And  who  can  now  tell,  or  conjecture,  how  great 
would  have  been  the  evil  of  such  a  course  ?  Who  can  say,  what  mis- 
chiefs would  have  ensued,  if  Congress  had  thrown  these  territories 
into  the  hands  of  private  speculation?  Or  who,  on  the  other  hand, 
can  now  foresee,  what  the  event  would  be,  should  the  government  de- 
part from  the  same  wise  course  hereafter;  and,  not  content  with  such 
constant  absorption  of  the  public  lands  as  the  natural  growth  of  our 
population  may  accomplish,  should  force  great  portions  of  them,  at 
nominal  or  very  low  prices,  into  private  hands,  to  be  sold  and  settled, 
as  and  when  such  holders  might  think  would  be  most  for  their  own  in- 
terests? Hitherto,  sir,  I  maintain,  Congress  has  acted  wisely,  and 
done  its  duty  on  this  subject.  I  hope  it  will  continue  to  do  it. — De- 
parting from  the  original  idea,  so  soon  as  it  was  found  practicable  and 
convenient,  of  selling  by  townships,  Congress  has  disposed  of  the  soil 
in  smaller  and  still  smaller  portions,  till,  at  length,  it  sells  in  parcels 
of  no  more  than  eighty  acres;  thus  putting  it  into  the  power  of  every 
man  in  the  country,  however  poor,  but  who  has  health  and  strength, 
to  become  a  freeholder  if  he  desires,  not  of  barren  acres,  but  of  rich 
and  fertile  soil.  The  government  has  performed  all  the  conditions 
of  the  grant. — While  it  has  regarded  the  public  lands  as  a  common 
fund,  and  has  sought  to  make  what  reasonably  could  be  made  of  them, 
as  a  source  of  revenue,  it  has  also  applied  its  best  wisdom  to  sell  and 
settle  them,  as  fast  and  as  happily  as  possible;  and  whensoever  num- 
bers would  warrant  it,  each  territory  has  been  successively  admitted 
into  the  union,  with  all  the  rights  of  an  independent  state. 

Is  there  then,  sir,  I  ask,  any  well  founded  charge  of  hard  dealing; 
any  just  accusation  for  negligence,  indifference,  or  parsimony,  which 
is  capable  of  being  sustained  against  the  government  of  the  country, 
in  its  conduct,  towards  the  new  states?     Sir,  I  think  there  is  not. 

But  there  was  another  observation  of  the  honorable  member, 
which,  T  confess,  did  not  a  little  surprise  me.  As  a  reason  for 
wishing  to  get  rid  of  the  public  lands  as  soon  as  we  could,  and  as  we 
might,  the  honorable  gentleman  said,  he  wanted  no  permanent 
sources  of  income.  He  wished  to  see  the  time  when  the  govern- 
ment should  not  possess  a  shilling  of  permanent  revenue.  If  he 
could  speak  a  magical  word,  and  by  that  word  convert  the  whole 
capitol  into  gold,  the  word  should  not    be    spoken.     The    admin- 


365 

istration  of  a  fixed  revenue,  he  said,  only  consolidates  the  govern- 
ment, and  corrupts  the  people!  Sir,  I  confess  I  heard  these  sen- 
timents uttered  on  this  floor,  not  without  deep  regret  and  pain. 

I  am  aware  that  these,  and  similar  opinions,  are  espoused  by  cer- 
tain persons  out  of  the  capitol,  and  out  of  this  government;  but  I 
did  not  expect  so  soon  to  find  them  here.  Consolidation! — that 
perpetual  cry,  both  of  terror  and  delusion — Consolidation!  Sir, 
when  gentlemen  speak  of  the  effects  of  a  common  fund,  belonging 
to  all  the  states,  as  having  a  tendency  to  consolidation,  what  do  they 
mean?  Do  they  mean,  or  can  they  mean,  anything  more  than  that 
the  union  of  the  states  will  be  strengthened,  by  whatever  continues 
or  furnishes  inducements  to  the  people  of  the  states  to  hold  togeth- 
er? If  they  mean  merely  this,  then,  no  doubt,  the  public  lands  as 
well  as  everything  else  in  which  we  have  a  common  interest,  tends 
to  consolidation;  and  to  this  species  of  consolidation  every  true 
American  ought  to  be  attached;  it  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
strengthening  the  union  itself.  This  is  the  sense  in  which  the 
framers  of  the  constitution  use  the  word  consolidation;  and  in  which 
sense  I  adopt  and  cherish  it.  They  tell  us,  in  the  letter  submitting 
the  constitution  to  the  consideration  of  the  country,  that  "  In  all 
our  deliberations  on  this  subject,  we  kept  steadily  in  our  view  that 
which  appears  to  us  the  greatest  interest  of  every  true  American, 
the  consolidation  of  our  union,  in  which  is  involved  our  prosperity, 
felicity,  safety,  perhaps  our  national  existence.  This  important 
consideration,  seriously  and  deeply  impressed  on  our  minds,  led 
each  state  in  the  convention  to  be  less  rigid  on  points  of  inferior 
magnitude,  than  might  have  been  otherwise  expected." 

This,  sir,  is  Gen.  Washington's  consolidation.  This  is  the  true 
constitutional  consolidation.  I  wish  to  see  no  new  powers  drawn  to 
the  general  government;  but  I  confess  I  rejoice  in  whatever  tends 
to  strengthen  the  bond  that  unites  us,  and  encourages  the  hope  that 
our  union  may  be  perpetual.  And,  therefore,  I  cannot  but  feel 
regret  at  the  expression  of  such  opinions  as  the  gentleman  has 
avowed;  because  I  think  their  obvious  tendency  is  to  weaken  the 
bond  of  our  connexion.  I  know  that  there  are  some  persons  in  the 
part  of  the  country  from  which  the  honorable  member  comes,  who 
habitually  speak  of  the  union  in  terms  of  indifference,  or  even  of 
disparagement.  The  honorable  member  himself  is  not,  I  trust,  and 
can  never  be,  one  of  these.  They  significantly  declare,  that  it  is 
time  to  calculate  the  value  of  the  union;  and  their  aim  seems  to  be 
to  enumerate,  and  to  magnify  all  the  evils,  real  and  imaginary, 
which  the  government  under  the  union  produces. 

The  tendency  of  all  these  ideas  and  sentiments  is  obviously  to 
bring  the  union  into  discussion,  as  a  mere  question  of  present  and 
temporary  expediency — nothing  more  than  a  mere  matter  of  profit 
and  loss.  The  union  is  to  be  preserved,  while  it  suits  local  and 
temporary  purposes  to  preserve  it;  and  to  be  sundered  whenever  it 
shall  be  found  to  thwart  such  purposes.  Union,  of  itself,  is  con- 
sidered by  the  disciples  of  this  school  as  hardly  a  good. — It  is 
only  regarded  as  a  possible  means  of  good;  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
as  a  possible  means  of  evil.  They  cherish  no  deep  and  fixed  regard 
for  it,  flowing  from  a  thorough  conviction  of  its  absolute  and  vital 

GG* 


366 

necessity  to  our  welfare.  Sir,  I  deprecate  and  deplore  this  tone  of 
thinking  and  acting.  I  deem  far  otherwise  of  the  union  of  the 
states;  and  so  did  the  framers  of  the  constitution  themselves.  What 
they  said  I  believe;  fully  and  sincerely  believe,  that  the  union  of 
the  states  is  essential  to  the  prosperity  and  safety  of  the  states.  I 
am  a  unionist,  and  in  this  sense,  a  national  republican.  I  would 
strengthen  the  ties  that  hold  us  together.  Far,  indeed,  in  my  wishes, 
very  tar  distant  be  the  day, when  our  associated  and  fraternal  stripes 
shall  be  severed  asunder,  and  when  that  happy  constellation  under 
which  we  have  risen  to  so  much  renown,  shall  be  broken  up,  and  be 
seen  sinking,  star  after  star,  into  obscurity  and  night  ! 

Among  other  things,  the  honorable  member  spoke  of  the  public 
debt.  To  that  he  holds  the  public  lands  pledged,  and  has  expressed 
his  usual  earnestness  for  its  total  discharge.  Sir,  I  have  always 
voted  for  every  measure  for  reducing  the  debt,  since  I  have  been  in 
Congress.  I  wished  it  paid  because  it  is  a  debt;  and,  so  far,  is  a 
charge  upon  the  industry  of  the  country,  and  the  finances  of  the 
government.  But,  sir,  I  have  observed,  that,  whenever  the  subject 
of  the  public  debt  is  introduced  into  the  Senate,  a  morbid  sort  of 
fervor  is  manifested  in  regard  to  it,  which  I  have  been  sometimes  at 
a  loss  to  understand.  The  debt  is  not  now  large,  and  is  in  a  course 
of  most  rapid  reduction.  A  very  few  years  will  see  it  extin- 
guished.— INow  I  am  not  entirely  able  to  persuade  myself  that  it  is 
not  certain  supposed  incidental  tendencies  and  effects  of  this  debt, 
rather  than  its  pressure  and  charge  as  a  debt,  that  cause  so  much 
anxiety  to  get  rid  of  it.  Possibly  it  may  be  regarded  as  in  some  de- 
gree a  tie,  holding  the  different  parts  of  the  country  together,  by 
considerations  of  mutual  interest.  If  this  be  one  of  its  effects,  the 
effect  itself  is,  in  my  opinion,  not  to  be  lamented.  Let  me  not  be 
misunderstood.  I  would  not  continue  the  debt  for  the  sake  of  any 
collateral  or  consequential  advantage,  such  as  I  have  mentioned. 
I  only  mean  to  say,  that  that  consequence  itself  is  not  one  that  I  re- 
gret. At  the  same  time;  that  if  there  are  others  who  would,  or  who 
do  regret  it,  I  differ  from  them. 

As  I  have  already  remarked,  sir,  it  was  one  among  the  reasons 
assigned  by  the  honorable  member  for  his  wish  to  be  rid  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  altogether,  that  the  public  disposition  of  them,  and  the  rev- 
enues derived  from  them,  tend  to  corrupt  the  people.  This,  sir,  I 
confess,  passes  my  comprehension.  These  lands  are  sold  at  public 
auction,  or  taken  up  at  fixed  prices,  to  form  farms  and  freeholds. 
Whom  does  this  corrupt?  According  to  the  system  of  sales,  a  fixed 
proportion  is  everywhere  reserved,  as  a  fund  for  education.  Does 
education  corrupt?  Is  the  schoolmaster  a  corrupter  of  youth?  the 
spelling  book,  does  it  break  down  the  morals  of  the  rising  genera- 
tion? and  the  Holy  Scriptures,  are  they  fountains  of  corruption?  Or 
if,  in  the  exercise  of  a  provident  liberality,  in  regard  to  its  own  pro- 
perty as  a  great  landed  proprietor,  and  to  high  purposes  of  utility 
towards  others,  the  government  gives  portions  of  these  lands  to  the 
making  of  a  canal,  or  the  opening  of  a  road,  in  the  country  where 
the  lands  themselves  are  situated,  what  alarming  and  overwhelming 
corruption  follows  from  all  this?  Can  there  be  nothing  pure  in  gov- 
ernment, except  the  exercise  of  mere  control?   Can  nothing  be  done. 


367 

without  corruption,  but  the  impositions  of  penalty  and  restraint? 
Whatever  is  positively  beneficent,  whatever  is  actively  good,  what- 
ever spreads  abroad  benefits  and  blessings  which  all  can  see,  and  all 
can  feel,  whatever  opens  intercourse,  augments  population,  enhances 
the  value  of  property  and  diffuses  knowledge — must  all  this  be  re- 
jected and  reprobated  as  a  dangerous  and  obnoxious  policy,  hurrying 
us  to  the  double  ruin  of  a  government,  turned  into  despotism  by  the 
mere  exercise  of  acts  of  beneficence,  and  of  a  people,  corrupted, 
beyond  hope  of  rescue,  by  the  improvement  of  their  condition? 

The  gentleman  proceeded,  sir,  to  draw  a  frightful  picture  of  the 
future.  He  spoke  of  the  centuries  that  must  elapse,  before  all  the 
lands  could  be  sold,  and  the  great  hardships  that  the  states  must  suf- 
fer while  the  United  States  reserved  to  itself,  within  their  limits, 
such  large  portions  of  soil,  not  liable  to  taxation.  Sir,  this  is  all,  or 
mostly  imagination.  If  these  lands  were  leasehold  property,  if  they 
were  held  by  the  United  States  on  rent,  there  would  be  much  in  the 
idea.  But  they  are  wild  lands,  held  only  till  they  can  be  sold;  re- 
served no  longer  than  till  somebody  will  take  them  up,  at  low  prices. 
As  to  their  not  being  taxed,  I  would  ask  whether  the  states  themselves, 
if  they  owned  them,  would  tax  them  before  sale  ?  Sir,  if  in  any  case 
any  state  can  show  that  the  policy  of  the  United  States  retards  her 
settlement,  or  prevents  her  from  cultivating  the  lands  within  her  lim- 
its, she  shall  have  my  vote  to  alter  that  policy.  But  I  look  upon  the 
public  lands  as  a  public  fund,  and  that  we  are  no  more  author- 
ised to  give  them  away  gratuitously  than  to  give  away  gratuitously 
the  money  in  the  treasury.  I  am  quite  aware,  that  the  sums  drawn 
annually  from  the  western  states  make  a  heavy  drain  upon  them,  but 
that  is  unavoidable.  For  that  very  reason,  among  others,  I  have  al- 
ways been  inclined  to  pursue  towards  them  a  kind  and  most  liberal 
policy,  but  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  forget,  at  the  same  time,  what  is 
due  to  other  states,  and  to  the  solemn  engagements  under  which  the 
government  rests. 

I  come  now,  Mr.  President,  to  that  part  of  the  gentleman's  speech, 
which  has  been  the  main  occasion  of  my  addressing  the  Senate.  The 
East!  the  obnoxious,  the  rebuked,  the  always  reproached  East! 
We  have  come  in,  sir,  on  this  debate,  for  even  more  than  a  common 
share  of  accusation  and  attack.  If  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina  was  not  our  original  accuser,  he  has  yet  recited  the 
indictment  against  us  with  the  air  and  tone  of  a  public  prosecutor. 
He  has  summoned  us  to  plead  on  our  arraignment;  and  he  tells  us 
we  are  charged  with  the  crime  of  a  narrow  and  selfish  policy;  of  en- 
deavouring to  restrain  emigration  to  the  West,  and  having  that  object 
in  view,  of  maintaining  a  steady  opposition  to  western  measures  and 
western  interests.  And  the  cause  of  all  this  narrow  and  selfish  pol- 
icy, the  gentleman  finds  in  the  tariff — I  think  he  called  it  the  accurs- 
ed policy  of  the  tariff.  This  policy,  the  gentleman  tells  us,  requires 
multitudes  of  dependent  laborers,  a  population  of  paupers,  and  that 
it  is  to  secure  these  at  home,  that  the  East  opposes  whatever  may  in- 
duce to  western  emigration.  Sir,  I  rise  to  defend  the  East.  I  rise 
to  repel,  both  the  charge  itself,  and  the  cause  assigned  for  it.  I  de- 
ny that,  the  East  has,  at  any  time,  shown  an  illiberal  policy  towards 
the  West.    I  pronounce  the  whole  accusation  to  be  without  the  least 


368 

foundation  in  any  facts,  existing  either  now,  or  at  any  previous  time. 
I  deny  it  in  the  general,  and  I  deny  each  and  all  its  particulars.  I  de- 
ny the  sum  total,  and  I  deny  the  detail.  I  deny  that  the  East  has 
ever  manifested  hostility  to  the  West,  and  I  deny  that  she  has  adopt- 
ed any  policy  that  would  naturally  have  led  her  in  such  a  course. 

But  the  tariff !  the  tariff !  !  Sir,  I  beg  to  say  in  regard  to  the 
East,  that  the  original  policy  of  the  tariff  is  not  hers,  whether  it  be 
wise  or  unwise.  New  England  is  not  its  author.  If  gentlemen 
will  recur  to  the  tariff  of  1816,  they  will  find  that  this  was  not  car- 
ried by  New  England  votes.  It  was  truly  more  a  southern,  than  an 
eastern  measure.  And  what  votes  carried  the  tariff  of  1824? 
Certainly,  not  those  of  New  England.  It  is  known  to  have  been 
made  matter  of  reproach,  especially  against  Massachusetts,  that  she 
would  not  aid  the  tariff  of  1 824 ;  and  a  selfish  motive  was  imputed  to 
her  for  that  also.  In  point  of  fact,  it  is  true  that  she  did,  indeed,  op- 
pose the  tariff  of  1824.  There  were  more  votes  in  favor  of  that  law 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  not  only  in  each  of  a  majority  of 
the  western  states,  but  even  in  Virginia  herself  also,  than  in  Mas- 
sachusetts. It  was  literally  forced  upon  New  England;  and  this 
shows  how  groundless,  how  void  of  all  probability  any  charge  must 
be,  which  imputes  to  her  hostility  to  the  growth  of  the  western  states, 
as  naturally  flowing  from  a  cherished  policy  of  her  own.  But  leav- 
ing all  conjectures  about  causes  and  motives,  I  go  at  once  to  the 
fact,  and  I  meet  it  with  one  broad,  comprehensive,  and  emphatic 
negative.  I  deny,  that  in  any  part  of  her  history,  at  any  period  of 
the  government,  or  in  relation  to  any  leading  subject,  New  England 
has  manifested  such  hostility  as  is  charged  upon  her.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  maintain  that,  from  the  day  of  the  cession  of  the  territories 
by  the  states  to  Congress,  no  portion  of  the  country  has  acted,  either 
with  more  liberality  or  more  intelligence,  on  the  subject  of  the  west- 
ern lands,  in  the  new  states,  than  New  England.  This  statement, 
though  strong,  is  no  stronger  than  the  strictest  truths  will  warrant. 
Let  us  look  at  the  historical  facts.  So  soon  as  the  cessions  were 
obtained,  it  became  necessary  to  make  provision  for  the  government 
and  disposition  of  the  territory — the  country  was  to  be  governed. 
This,  for  the  present,  it  was  obvious,  must  be  by  some  territorial 
system  of  administration.  But  the  soil,  also,  was  to  be  granted  and 
settled.  Those  immense  regions,  large  enough  almost  for  an  empire, 
were  to  be  appropriated  to  private  ownership.  How  was  this  best 
to  be  done  ?  What  system  for  sale  and  disposition  should  be  adopt- 
ed? Two  modes  for  conducting  the  sales  presented  themselves;  the 
one  a  southern,  and  the  other  a  northern  mode.  It  would  be  tedi- 
ous, sir,  here,  to  run  out  these  different  systems,  into  all  their  dis- 
tinctions, and  to  contrast  their  opposite  results.  That  which  was 
adopted  was  the  northern  system,  and  is  that  which  we  now  see  in 
successful  operation  in  all  the  new  states.  That  which  was  reject- 
ed, was  the  system  of  warrants,  surveys,  entry,  and  location;  such 
as  prevails  south  of  the  Ohio.  It  is  not  necessary  to  extend  these 
remarks  into  invidious  comparisons.  This  last  system,  is  that  which, 
as  has  been  emphatically  said,  has  shingled  over  the  country  to  which 
it  was  applied,  with  so  many  conflicting  titles  and  claims.  Every- 
body acquainted  with  the  subject  knows  how  easily  it  leads  to  spec- 


369 

ulation  and  litigation — two  great  calamities  in  a  new  country.  From 
the  system  actually  established,  these  evils  are  banished.  Now,  sir, 
in  effecting  this  great  measure,  the  first  important  measure  on  the 
whole  subject,  New  England  acted  with  vigor  and  effect,  and  the 
latest  posterity  of  those  who  settled  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  will  have 
reason  to  remember,  with  gratitude,  her  patriotism  and  her  wisdom. 
The  system  adopted  was  her  own  system.  She  knew,  for  she  had 
tried  and  proved  its  value.  It  was  the  oldfashioned  way  of  survey- 
ing lands,  before  the  issuing  of  any  title  papers,  and  then  of  insert- 
ing accurate  and  precise  descriptions  in  the  patents  or  grants,  and 
proceeding  with  regular  reference  to  metes  and  bounds. — This  gives 
to  original  titles,  derived  from  government,  a  certain  and  fixed  char- 
acter; it  cuts  up  litigation  by  the  roots,  and  the  settler  commences 
his  labor  with  the  assurance  that  he  has  a  clear  title.  It  is  easy  to 
perceive,  but  not  easy  to  measure,  the  importance  of  this  in  a  new 
country.  New  England  gave  this  system  to  the  west;  and  while  it 
remains,  there  will  be  spread  over  all  the  west  one  monument  of 
her  intelligence  in  matters  of  government,  and  her  practical  good 
sense. 

At  the  foundation  of  the  constitution  of  these  new  north  western 
states,  we  are  accustomed,  sir,  to  praise  the  lawgivers  of  antiquity; 
we  help  to  perpetuate  the  fame  of  Solon  and  Lycurgus;  but  I  doubt 
whether  one  single  law  of  any  lawgiver,  ancient  or  modern,  has  pro- 
duced effects  of  more  distinct,  marked,  and  lasting  character,  than 
the  ordinance  of  '87.  That  instrument  was  drawn  by  Nathan  Dane, 
then,  and  now  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts.  It  was  adopted,  as  I 
think  I  have  understood,  without  the  slightest  alteration;  and  cer- 
tainly it  has  happened  to  few  men,  to  be  the  authors  of  a  political 
measure  of  more  large  and  enduring  consequence.  It  fixed,  forev- 
er, the  character  of  the  population  in  the  vast  regions  northwest  of 
the  Ohio,  by  excluding  from  them  involuntary  servitude.  It  impres- 
sed on  the  soil  itself,  while  it  was  yet  a  wilderness,  an  incapacity  to 
bear  up  any  other  than  freemen.  It  laid  the  interdict  against  per- 
sonal servitude,  in  original  compact,  not  only  deeper  than  all  local 
law,  but  deeper,  also,  than  all  local  constitutions.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances then  existing,  I  look  upon  this  original  and  seasonable 
provision,  as  a  real  good  attained.  We  see  its  consequences  at  this 
moment,  and  we  shall  never  cease  to  see  them,  perhaps,  while  the 
Ohio  shall  flow.  It  was  a  great  and  salutary  measure  of  prevention. 
Sir,  I  should  fear  the  rebuke  of  no  intelligent  gentleman  of  Ken- 
tucky, were  I  to  ask  whether,  if  such  an  ordinance  could  have  been 
applied  to  his  own  state,  while  it  yet  was  a  wilderness,  and  before 
Boone  had  passed  the  gap  of  the  Alleghany,  he  does  not  suppose  it 
would  have  contributed  to  the  ultimate  greatness  of  that  common- 
wealth? It  is,  at  any  rate  not  to  be  doubted,  that  where  it  did  apply, 
it  has  produced  an  effect  not  easily  to  be  described,  or  measured  in 
the  growth  of  the  states,  and  the  extent  and  increase  of  their  popu- 
lation. Now,  sir,  this  great  measure  again  was  carried  by  the  North 
and  by  the  North  alone.  There  were,  indeed,  individuals  elsewhere 
favorable  to  it;  but  it  was  supported  as  a  measure,  entirely  by  the 
votes  of  the  northern  states.  If  New  England  had  been  governed 
by  the  narrow  and  selfish  views  now  ascribed  to  her,  this  very  mea- 
47 


370 

sure  was,  of  all  others,  the  best  calculated  to  thwart  her  purposes. 
It  was  of  all  things,  the  very  means  of  rendering  certain  a  vast  emi- 
gration from  h'ter  own  population  to  the  west.  She  looked  to  that 
consequence  only  to  disregard  it.  She  deemed  the  regulation  a  most 
useful  one  to  the  states  that  would  spring  up  on  the  territory,  and  ad- 
vantageous to  the  country  at  large.  She  adhered  to  the  principle 
of  it  perseveringly,  year  after  year,  until  it  was  finally  accomplished. 

Leaving  then,  Mr.  President,  these  two  great  and  leading  meas- 
ures, and  coming  down  to  our  own  times,  what  is  there  in  the  history 
of  recent  measures  of  government  that  exposes  New  England  to 
this  accusation  of  hostility  to  western  interests?  I  assert,  boldly, 
that  in  all  measures  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  the  West,  since  my 
acquaintance  here,  no  part  of  the  country  has  manifested  a  more 
liberal  policy.  I  beg  to  say,  sir,  that  I  do  not  state  this  with  a 
view  of  claiming  for  her  any  special  regard  on  that  account.  Not 
at  all.  She  does  not  place  her  support  of  measures  on  the  ground 
of  favor  conferred — far  otherwise.  What  she  has  done  has  been  con- 
sonant to  her  view  of  the  general  good,  and  therefore  she  has  done 
it: — She  has  sought  to  make  no  gain  of  it;  on  the  contrary,  individ- 
uals may  have  felt  undoubtedly  some  natural  regret,  at  finding  the 
relative  importance  of  their  own  states  diminished,  by  the  growth 
of  the  West.  But  New  England  has  regarded  that  as  in  the  natural 
course  of  things,  and  has  never  complained  of  it.  Let  me  see,  sir, 
any  one  measure  favorable  to  the  West,  which  has  been  opposed  by 
New  England,  since  the  government  bestowed  its  attention  to  these 
western  improvements.  Select  what  you  will,  if  it  be  a  measure  of 
acknowledged  utility,  I  answer  for  it,  it  will  be  found,  that  not  only 
were  New  England  votes  for  it,  but  that  New  England  votes  carried 
it.  Will  you  take  the  Cumberland  road?  who  has  made  that?  Will 
you  take  the  Portland  Canal?  whose  support  carried  that  bill?  Sir, 
at  what  period  beyond  the  Greek  kalends,  could  these  measures,  or 
measures  like  these,  have  been  accomplished,  had  they  depended  on 
the  votes  of  southern  gentlemen?  Why,  sir,  we  know  that  we 
must  have  waited  till  the  constitutional  notions  of  those  gentlemen 
had  undergone  an  entire  change.  Generally  speaking,  they  have 
done  nothing,  and  can  do  nothing. — All  that  has  been  effected,  has 
been  done  by  the  votes  of  reproached  New  England.  I  undertake 
to  say,  sir,  that  if  you  look  to  the  votes  on  any  one  of  these  meas- 
ures, and  strike  out  from  the  list  of  ayes  the  names  of  New  England 
members,  it  will  be  found  that  in  every  case,  the  South  would  then 
have  voted  down  the  West,  and  the  measure  would  have  failed.  I  do 
not  believe  any  one  instance  can  be  found  where  this  is  not  strictly 
true.  I  do  not  believe  that  one  dollar  has  been  expended  for  these 
purposes  beyond  the  mountain,  which  could  have  been  obtained  with- 
out cordial  cooperation  and  support  from  New  England. 

Sir,  I  put  the  gentleman  to  the  West  itself.  Let  gentlemen  who 
have  sat  here  ten  years,  come  forth  and  declare,  by  what  aids,  and 
by  whose  votes  they  have  succeeded,  in  measures  deemed  of  essen- 
tial importance  to  their  part  of  the  country.  To  all  men  of  sense 
and  candor,  in  or  out  of  Congress,  who  have  any  knowledge  upon 
the  subject,  New  England  may  appeal,  for  refutation  of  the  reproach 
now  attempted  to  be  cast  upon  her  in  this  respect. 


371 

I  take  liberty  to  repeat,  that  I  make  no  claim,  on  behalf  of  New 
England,  or  on  account  of  that  which  I  have  not  stated.  She  does 
not  profess  to  have  acted  out  of  favor;  for  it  would  not  become  her 
so  to  have  acted.  She  solicits  for  no  especial  thanks;  but,  in  the 
consciousness  of  having  done  her  duty  in  these  things,  uprightly 
and  honestly,  and  with  a  fair  and  liberal  spirit,  be  assured  she  will 
repel,  whenever  she  thinks  the  occasion  calls  for  it,  an  unjust  and 
groundless  imputation  of  partiality  and  selfishness. 

The  gentleman  alluded  to  a  report  of  the  late  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  which,  according  to  his  reading  or  construction  of  it,  re- 
commended what  he  calls  the  tariff  policy,  or  a  branch  of  that  policy; 
that  is,  the  restraining  of  emigration  to  the  West,  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  hands  at  home,  to  carry  on  manufactures.  I  think,  sir,  that 
the  gentleman  misapprehended  the  meaning  of  the  secretary,  in  the 
interpretation  given  to  his  remarks.  I  understand  him  only  as  say- 
ing, that  since  the  low  price  of  lands  at  the  West  acts  as  a  constant 
and  standing  bounty  to  agriculture,  it  is,  on  that  account,  the  more 
reasonable  to  provide  encouragement  for  manufactures.  But,  sir, 
even  if  the  secretary's  observation  were  to  be  understood  as  the  gen- 
tleman understands  it,  it  would  not  be  a  sentiment  borrowed  from 
any  New  England  source.  Whether  it  be  right  or  wrong,  it  does 
not  originate  in  that  quarter. 

In  the  course  of  these  remarks,  Mr.  President,  I  have  spoken  of 
the  supposed  desire,  on  the  part  of  the  Atlantic  states,  to  check, 
or  at  least  not  to  hasten,  western  emigration,  as  a  narrow  policy. 
Perhaps  I  ought  to  have  qualified  the  expression;  because,  sir,  I 
am  now  about  to  quote  the  opinion  of  one,  to  whom  I  would  impute 
nothing  narrow.  I  am  now  about  to  refer  you  to  the  language  of  a 
gentleman  of  much  and  deserved  distinction,  now  a  member  of  the 
other  House,  and  occupying  a  prominent  situation  there.  The  gen- 
tleman, sir,  is  from  South  Carolina.  In  1825,  a  debate  arose  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  on  the  subject  of  the  western  road.  It 
happened  to  me  to  take  some  part  in  the  debate;  I  was  answered  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  to  whom  I  allude,  and  I  replied.  May  I  be 
pardoned,  sir,  if  I  read  a  part  of  this  debate. 

"  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has  urged,"  said  Mr.  McD., 
"  as  one  leading  reason  why  the  government  should  make  roads  to 
the  West,  that  these  roads  have  a  tendency  to  settle  the  public  lands; 
that  they  increase  the  inducements  to  settlement,  and  that  this  is  a 
national  object.  Sir,  I  differ  entirely  from  his  views  on  the  subject. 
I  think  that  the  public  lands  are  settling  quite  fast  enough;  that  our 
people  need  want  no  stimulus  to  urge  them  thither;  but  want  rather 
a  check,  at  least  on  that  artificial  tendency  to  western  settlement, 
which  we  have  created  by  our  own  laws. 

"  The  gentleman  says,  that  the  great  object  of  government,  with 
respect  to  those  lands,  is  not  to  make  them  a  source  of  revenue,  but 
to  get  them  settled. — What  would  have  been  thought  of  this  argument 
in  the  old  thirteen  states?  It  amounts  to  this,  that  those  states  are 
to  offer  a  bonus  of  their  own  impoverishment,  to  create  a  vortex  to 
swallow  up  our  floating  population.  Look,  sir,  at  the  present  as- 
pect of  the  southern  states.     In  no  part  of  Europe  will  you  see  the 


372 

same  indications  of  decay.  Deserted  villages — houses  falling  to 
ruin — impoverished  lands  thrown  out  of  cultivation.  Sir,  I  believe 
that  if  the  public  lands  had  never  been  sold,  the  aggregate  amount 
of  the  national  wealth  would  have  been  greater  at  this  moment. 
Our  population,  if  concentrated  in  the  old  states  and  not  ground 
down  by  tariffs,  would  have  been  more  prosperous  and  wealthy. 
But  every  inducement  has  been  held  out  to  them  to  settle  in  the  west, 
qntil  our  population  has  become  sparse,  and  then  the  effects  of  this 
sparseness  are  now  to  be  counteracted  by  another  artificial  system. 
Sir,  I  say  if  there  is  any  object  worthy  the  attention  of  this  govern- 
ment, it  is  a  plan  which  shall  limit  the  sale  of  the  public  lands.  If 
those  lands  were  sold  according  to  their  real  value,  be  it  so.  But 
while  the  government  continues  as  it  does  to  give  them  away,  they 
will  draw  the  population  of  the  older  states,  and  still  farther  increase 
the  effect  which  is  already  distressingly  felt,  and  which  must  go  to 
diminish  the  value  of  all  those  states  possess.  And  this,  sir,  is  held 
out  to  us  as  a  motive  for  granting  the  present  appropriation.  I 
would  not,  indeed,  prevent  the  formation  of  roads  on  these  consid- 
erations, but  I  certainly  would  not  encourage  it.  Sir,  there  is  an 
additional  item  in  the  account  of  the  benefits  which  this  government 
has  conferred  on  the  western  states.  It  is  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands  at  the  minimum  price.  At  this  moment  we  are  selling  to  the 
people  of  the  West,  lands  at  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents,  which 
are  worth  fifteen,  and  which  would  sell  at  that  price  if  the  markets 
were  not  glutted." 

Mr.  Webster  observed,  in  reply,  that  "  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  had  mistaken  him,  if  he  supposed  that  it  was  his  wish  so  to 
hasten  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  as  to  throw  them  into  the  hands 
of  purchasers,  who  would  sell  again.  His  idea  only  went  as  far  as 
this:  that  the  price  should  be  fixed  so  low  as  not  to  prevent  the  set- 
tlement of  the  lands,  yet  not  so  low  as  to  allow  speculators  to  pur- 
chase. Mr.  W.  observed  that  he  could  not  at  all  concur  with  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  in  wishing  to  restrain  the  laboring 
classes  of  population  in  the  eastern  states  from  going  to  any  part  of 
our  territory,  where  they  could  better  their  condition;  nor  did  he 
suppose  such  an  idea  was  anywhere  entertained.  The  observations 
of  the  gentleman  had  opened  to  him  new  views  of  policy  on  this 
subject,"  and  he  thought  he  now  could  perceive  why  some  of  our 
states  continued  to  have  such  bad  roads;  it  must  be  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  people  from  going  out  of  them.  The  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  supposes,  that  if  our  population  had  been  confined 
to  the  old  thirteen  states,  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  country  would 
have  been  greater  than  it  now  is.  But  sir,  it  is  an  error,  that  the 
increase  of  the  aggregate  of  the  national  wealth,  is  the  object  chief- 
ly to  be  pursued  by  government.  The  distribution  of  the  national 
wealth  is  an  object  quite  as  important  as  its  increase.  He  was  not 
surprised  that  the  old  states,  not  increasing  in  population  so  fast  as 
was  expected  (for  he  believed  nothing  like  a  decrease  was  pretend- 
ed) should  be  an  idea  by  no  means  agreeable  to  gentlemen  from 
those  states;  we  are  all  reluctant  in  submitting  to  the  loss  of  relative 
importance — but  this  was  nothing  more  than  the  natural  condition 
of  a  country  densely  populated  in  one  part,  and  possessing  in  anoth- 


373 

er  a  vast  tract  of  unsettled  lands.  The  plan  of  the  gentleman  went 
to  reverse  the  order  of  nature,  vainly  expecting  to  retain  men  with- 
in a  small  and  comparatively  unproductive  territory  '  who  have  all 
the  world  before  them  where  to  choose.'  For  his  own  part,  he  was 
in  favor  of  letting  population  take  its  own  course;  he  should  experi- 
ence no  feeling  of  mortification  if  any  of  his  constituents  liked  bet- 
ter to  settle  on  the  Kansas  or  Arkansas,  or  elsewhere  within  our 
territory;  let  them  go,  and  be  happier  if  they  could.  The  gentleman 
says,  our  aggregate  of  wealth  would  have  been  greater  if  our  popu- 
lation had  been  restrained  within  the  limits  of  the  old  states;  but  does 
he  not  consider  population  to  be  wealth?  And  has  not  this  been  in- 
creased by  the  settlement  of  a  new  and  fertile  country  ? — Such  a 
country  presents  the  most  alluring  of  all  prospects  to  a  young  and 
laboring  man;  it  gives  him  a  freehold — it  offers  to  him  weight  and 
respectability  in  society;  and  above  all,  it  presents  to  him  a  prospect 
of  a  permanent  provision  for  his  children.  Sir,  these  are  induce- 
ments which  never  were  resisted,  and  never  will  be;  and,  were  the 
whole  extent  of  country  filled  with  population  up  to  the  Rocky 
mountains,  these  inducements  would  carry  that  population  forward 
to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific  ocean.  Sir,  it  is  in  vain  to  talk;  indi- 
viduals will  seek  their  own  good,  and  not  any  artificial  aggregate  of 
the  national  wealth.  A  young  enterprising  and  hardy  agriculturist, 
can  conceive  of  nothing  better  to  him  than  plenty  of  good,  cheap 
land." 

Sir,  with  the  reading  of  these  extracts  I  leave  the  subject.  The 
Senate  will  bear  me  witness  that  I  am  not  accustomed  to  allude  to 
local  opinions,  nor  to  compare,  nor  contrast  different  portions  of  the 
country. — I  have  often  suffered  things  to  pass  which  I  might  prop- 
erly enough  have  considered  as  deserving  a  remark,  without  any 
observation.  But  I  have  felt  it  my  duty,  on  this  occasion,  to  vindi- 
cate the  state  I  represent  from  charges  and  imputations  on  her  public 
character  and  conduct,  which  I  know  to  be  undeserved  and  unfoun- 
ded. If  advanced  elsewhere,  they  might  be  passed,  perhaps,  with- 
out notice.  But  whatever  is  said  here,  is  supposed  to  be  entitled 
to  public  regard,  and  to  deserve  public  attention — it  derives  impor- 
tance and  dignity  from  the  place  where  it  is  uttered.  As  a  true 
representative  of  the  state  which  has  sent  me  here,  it  is  my  duty, 
and  a  duty  which  I  shall  fulfil,  to  place  her  history  and  her  conduct, 
her  honor  and  her  character,  in  their  just  and  proper  light,  so  often 
as  I  think  an  attack  is  made  upon  her,  so  respectable  as  to  deserve 
to  be  repelled. 

Mr.  W.  concluded  by  moving  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the 
resolution. 


Mr.  Benton  replied. 

Thursday,  January  21.  Mr.  Chambers  of  Maryland  expressed  a  hope,  that  the  Senate 
would  postpone  the  discussion  until  Monday,  as  Mr.  Webster,  who  had  taken  a  part  in  it, 
had  unavoidable  engagements  out  of  the  Senate,  and  could  not  conveniently  attend. 

HH 


374 

Mr.  Hayne  said  that  some  things  had  fallen  from  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  which 
had  created  sensations  from  which  he  would  desire  at  once  to  relieve  himself.  The  gentleman 
had  discharged  his  weapon,  and  he  (Mr.  H.)  wished  for  an  opportunity  to  return  the  fire. 

Mr.  Webster  remarked  that  he  was  ready  to  receive  it,  and  wished  the  discussion  to  pro- 
ceed. Mr.  Hayne  then  took  the  floor,  and  spoke  at  much  length.  After  which  Mr.  Web- 
ster addressed  the  Senate  as  follows  : — 


Mr.  President, — When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed,  for  many 
days,  in  thick  weather,  and  on  an  unknown  sea,  he  naturally  avails 
himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest  glance  of  the 
sun,  to  take  his  latitude,  and  ascertain  how  far  the  elements  have 
driven  him  from  his  true  coarse.  Let  us  imitate  this  prudence,  and, 
before  we  float  farther  on  the  waves  of  this  debate,  refer  to  the  point 
from  which  we  departed,  that  we  may  at  least  be  able  to  conjecture 
where  we  now  are.     I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as  follows: 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be  instructed  to 
inquire  and  report  the  quantity  of  public  lands  remaining  unsold 
within  each  state  and  territory,  and  whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit, 
for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  only 
as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for  sale,  and  are  now  subject  to  en- 
try at  the  minimum  price.  And,  also,  whether  the  office  of  Surveyor 
General,  and  some  of  the  Land  Offices,  may  not  be  abolished  with- 
out detriment  to  the  public  interest;  or  whether  it  be  expedient  to 
adopt  measures  to  hasten  the  sales,  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  sur- 
veys of  the  public  lands." 

We  have  thus  heard,  sir,  what  the  resolution  is,  which  is  actually 
before  us  for  consideration;  and  it  will  readily  occur  to  every  one 
that  it  is  almost  the  only  subject  about  which  something  has  not 
been  said  in  the  speech,  running  through  two  days,  by  which  the 
Senate  has  been  now  entertained  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Car- 
olina. Every  topic  in  the  wide  range  of  our  public  affairs,  whether 
past  or  present — Everything,  general  or  local,  whether  belonging 
to  national  politics,  or  party  politics,  seems  to  have  attracted  more 
or  less  of  the  honorable  member's  attention,  save  only  the  resolution 
before  the  Senate.  He  has  spoken  of  everything  but  the  public 
lands.  They,  have  escaped  his  notice.  To  that  subject,  in  all  his 
excursions,  he  has  not  paid  even  the  cold  respect  of  a  passing  glance. 

When  this  debate,  sir,  was  to  be  resumed,  on  Thursday  morning, 
it  so  happened  that  it  would  have  been  convenient  for  me  to  be  else- 
where. The  honorable  member,  however,  did  not  incline  to  put  off 
the  discussion  to  another  day.  He  had  a  shot,  he  said,  to  return, 
and  he  wished  to  discharge  it.  That  shot,  sir,  which  it  was  kind 
thus  to  inform  us  was  coming,  that  we  might  stand  out  of  the  way, 
or  prepare  ourselves  to  fall  before  it,  and  die  with  decency,  has  now 
been  received.  Under  all  advantages,  and  with  expectation  awak- 
ened by  the  tone  which  preceded  it,  it  has  been  discharged,  and 
has  spent  its  force.  It  may  become  me  to  say  no  more  of  its  effect, 
than  that,  if  nobody  is  found,  after  all,  either  killed  or  wounded  by 
it,  it  is  not  the  first  time,  in  the  history  of  human  affairs,  that  the 
vigor  and  success  of  the  war  have  not  quite  come  up  to  the  lofty  and 
sounding  phrase  of  the  manifesto. 


375 

The  gentleman,  sir,  in  declining  to  postpone  the  debate,  told  the 
Senate,  with  the  emphasis  of  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  that  there  was 
something  rankling  here,  which  he  wished  to  relieve.  [Mr.  Hayne 
rose,  and  disclaimed  having  used  the  word  rankling.]  It  would  not, 
Mr.  President,  be  safe  for  the  honorable  member  to  appeal  to  those 
around  him,  upon  the  question,  whether  he  did,  in  fact,  make  use  of 
that  word.  But  he  may  have  been  unconscious  of  it.  At  any  rate, 
it  is  enough  that  he  disclaims  it.  But  still  with  or  without  the  use  of 
that  particular  word,  he  had  yet  something  here,  he  said,  of  which  he 
wished  to  rid  himself  by  an  immediate  reply.  In  this  respect,  sir,  I 
have  a  great  advantage  over  the  honorable  gentleman.  There  is  noth- 
ing here,  sir,  which  gives  me  the  slightest  uneasiness ;  neither  fear,  nor 
anger,  nor  that,  which  is  sometimes  more  troublesome  than  either — 
the  consciousness  of  having  been  in  the  wrong.  There  is  nothing, 
either  originating  here,  or  now  received  here  by  the  gentleman's 
shot.  Nothing  original,  for  I  had  not  the  slightest  feeling  of  disres- 
pect or  unkindness  towards  the  honorable  member.  Some  passa- 
ges, it  is  true,  had  occurred  since  our  acquaintance  in  this  body,  which 
I  could  have  wished  might  have  been  otherwise;  but  I  had  used  phi- 
losophy and  forgotten  them.  When  the  honorable  member  rose, 
in  his  first  speech,  I  paid  him  the  respect  of  attentive  listening;  and 
when  he  sat  down,  though  surprised,  and  I  must  say  even  astonished, 
at  some  of  his  opinions,  nothing  was  farther  from  my  intention  than 
to  commence  any  personal  warfare:  and  through  the  whole  of  the 
few  remarks  I  made  in  answer,  I  avoided,  studiously  and  carefully, 
everything  which  I  thought  possible  to  be  construed  into  disrespect. 
And,  sir,  while  there  is  thus,  nothing  originating  here,  which  I  wished, 
at  any  time,  or  now  wish  to  discharge,  I  must  repeat,  also,  that  noth- 
ing has  been  received  here,  which  rankles,  or  in  any  way  gives  me 
annoyance.  I  will  not  accuse  the  honorable  member  of  violating 
the  rules  of  civilized  war, — I  will  not  say,  that  he  poisoned  his  ar- 
rows. But  whether  his  shafts  were,  or  were  not,  dipped  in  that, 
which  would  have  caused  rankling,  if  they  had  reached,  there  was 
not,  as  it  happened,  quite  strength  enough  in  the  bow  to  bring  them  to 
their  mark.  If  he  wishes  now  to  gather  up  those  shafts,  he  must 
look  for  them  elsewhere;  they  will  not  be  found  fixed  and  quivering 
in  the  object,  at  which  they  were  aimed. 

The  honorable  member  complained  that  I  had  slept  on  his  speech. 
I  must  have  slept  on  it,  or  not  slept  at  all.  The  moment  the  hono- 
rable member  sat  down,  his  friend  from  Missouri  rose,  and  with 
much  honeyed  commendation  of  the  speech,  suggested  that  the  im- 
pressions which  it  had  produced,  were  too  charming  and  delightful 
to  be  disturbed  by  other  sentiments  or  other  sounds,  and  proposed 
that  the  Senate  should  adjourn.  Would  it  have  been  quite  amiable, 
in  me,  sir,  to  interrupt  this  excellent  good  feeling?  Must  I  not  have 
been  absolutely  malicious,  if  I  could  have  thrust  myself  forward,  to 
destroy  sensations,' thus  pleasing?  Was  it  not.  much  better  and  kind- 
er, both  to  sleep  upon  them  myself,  and  to  allow  others,  also,  the 
pleasure  of  sleeping  upon  them?  But  if  it  be  meant,  by  sleeping 
upon  his  speech,  that  1  took  time  to  prepare  a  reply  to  it,  it  is  quite 
a  mistake;  owing  to  other  engagements,  I  could  not  employ  even  the 
interval,  between  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate,  and  its  meeting 


I 


376 

the  next  morning,  in  attention  to  the  subject  of  this  debate.  Never- 
theless, sir,  the  mere  matter  of  fact  is  undoubtedly  true — I  did  sleep 
on  the  gentleman's  speech;  and  slept  soundly.  And  I  slept  equally 
well  on  his  speech  of  yesterday,  to  which  I  am  now  replying.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  in  this  respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advantage 
over  the  honorable  member,  attributable,  doubtless,  to  a  cooler  tem- 
perament on  my  part;  for,  in  truth,  I  slept  upon  his  speeches  remark- 
ably well.  But  the  gentleman  inquires,  why  he  was  made  the  object 
of  such  a  reply?  Why  was  he  singled  out?  If  an  attack  has  been 
made  on  the  East,  he,  he  assures  us,  did  not  begin  it — it  was  the 
gentleman  from  Missouri.  Sir,  I  answered  the  gentleman's  speech, 
because  I  happened  to  hear  it:  and  because,  also,  I  chose  to  give  an 
answer  to  that  speech,  which,  if  unanswered,  I  thought  most  likely 
to  produce  injurious  impressions.  I  did  not  stop  to  inquire  who  was 
the  original  drawer  of  the  bill.  I  found  a  responsible  endorser  be- 
fore me,  and  it  was  my  purpose  to  hold  him  liable,  and  to  bring  him 
to  his  just  responsibility,  without  delay.  But,  sir,  this  interrogatory 
of  the  honorable  member  was  only  introductory  to  another.  He 
proceeded  to  ask  me,  whether  I  had  turned  upon  him,  in  this  debate, 
from  the  consciousness  that  I  should  find  an  overmatch,  if  I  ventur- 
ed on  a  contest  with  his  friend  from  Missouri.  If,  sir,  the  honorable 
member,  ex  gratia  modes/tee,  had  chosen  thus  to  defer  to  his  friend, 
and  to  pay  him  a  compliment,  without  intentional  disparagement  to 
others,  it  would  have  been  quite  according  to  the  friendly  courtesies 
of  debate,  and  not  at  all  ungrateful  to  my  own  feelings.  I  am  not 
one  of  those,  sir,  who  esteem  any  tribute  of  regard,  whether  light  and 
occasional,  or  more  serious  and  deliberate,  which  may  be  bestowed 
on  others,  as  so  much  unjustly  withholden  from  themselves.  But  the 
tone  and  manner  of  the  gentleman's  question,  forbid  me  that  I  thus 
interpret  it.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  consider  it  as  nothing  more  than 
a  civility  to  his  friend.  It  had  an  air  of  taunt  and  disparagement, 
something*  of  the  loftiness  of  asserted  superiority,  which  does  not 
allow  me  to  pass  it  over  without  notice.  It  was  put  as  a  question 
for  me  to  answer,  and  so  put,  as  if  it  were  difficult  for  me  to  answer, 
Whether  I  deemed  the  member  from  Missouri  an  overmatch  for 
myself,  in  debate  here.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  this  is  extraordi- 
nary language,  and  an  extraordinary  tone,  for  the  discussions  of 
this  body. 

Matches  and  overmatches!  Those  terms  are  more  applicable 
elsewhere  than  here,  and  fitter  for  other  assemblies  than  this. — Sir, 
the  gentleman  seems  to  forget  where,  and  what,  we  are.  This  is  a 
Senate:  a  Senate  of  equals:  of  men  of  individual  honor  and  personal 
character,  and  of  absolute  independence.  We  know  no  masters  :  we 
acknowledge  no  dictators.  This  is  a  hall  for  mutual  consultation  and 
discussion;  not  an  arena  for  the  exhibition  of  champions.  I  offer  my- 
self, sir,  as  a  match  for  no  man;  I  throw  the  challenge  of  debate  at 
no  man's  feet.  But,  then,  sir,  since  the  honorable  member  has  put 
the  question,  in  a  manner  that  calls  for  an  answer;  I  will  give  him  an 
answer;  and  I  tell  him,  that,  holding  myself  to  be  the  humblest  of 
the  members  here,  I  yet  know  nothing  in  the  arm  of  his  friend  from 
Missouri,  either  alone,  or  when  aided  by  the  arm  of  his  friend  from 
South  Carolina,  that  need  deter,  even  me,  from  espousing  whatever 


377 

opinions  I  may  choose  to  espouse,  from  debating  whenever  I  may 
choose  to  debate,  or  from  speaking  whatever  I  may  see  fit  to  say, 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  Sir,  when  uttered  as  matter  of  com- 
mendation or  compliment,  I  should  dissent  from  nothing  which  the 
honorable  member  might  say  of  his  friend.  Still  less  do  I  put  forth 
any  pretensions  of  my  own.  But,  when  put  to  me  as  matter  of  taunt, 
I  throw  it  back,  and  say  to  the  gentleman  that  he  could  possibly  say 
nothing  less  likely  than  such  a  comparison,  to  wound  my  pride  of 
personal  character.  The  anger  of  its  tone  rescued  the  remark  from 
intentional  irony,  which,  otherwise,  probably,  would  have  been  its 
general  acceptation.  But,  sir,  if  it  be  imagined  that  by  this  mutual 
quotation  and  commendation;  if  it  be  supposed  that,  by  casting  the 
characters  of  the  drama,  assigning  to  each  his  part:  to  one  the  attack ; 
to  another  the  cry  of  onset;  or,  if  it  be  thought  that  by  a  loud  and 
empty  vaunt  of  anticipated  victory,  any  laurels  are  to  be  won  here; 
if  it  be  imagined,  especially,  that  any,  or  all  these  things  will  shake 
any  purpose  of  mine,  I  can  tell  the  honorable  member,  once  for  all, 
that  he  is  greatly  mistaken,  and  that  he  is  dealing  with  one  of  whose 
temper  and  character  he  has  yet  much  to  learn.  Sir,  I  shall  not  al- 
low myself,  on  this  occasion,  I  hope  on  no  occasion,  to  be  betrayed 
into  any  loss  of  temper;  but  if  provoked,  as  I  trust  I  never  shall  be, 
into  crimination  and  recrimination,  the  honorable  member  may,  per- 
haps, find,  that,  in  that  contest,  there  will  be  blows  to  take  as  well 
as  blows  to  give;  that  others  can  state  comparisons  as  significant,  at 
least,  as  his  own,  and  that  his  impunity  may,  possibly,  demand  of  him 
whatever  powers  of  taunt  and  sarcasm  he  may  possess.  I  commend 
him  to  a  prudent  husbandry  of  his  resources. 

But,  sir,  the  Coalition!  The  Coalition!  Ay,  "the  murdered 
Coalition!"  The  gentleman  asks,  if  I  were  led  or  frighted  into  this 
debate  by  the  spectre  of  the  Coalition — "  Was  it  the  ghost  of  the 
murdered  Coalition,"  he  exclaims,  "  which  haunted  the  member  from 
Massachusetts;  and  which,  like  the  ghost  of  Banquo,  would  never 
down?"  "  The  murdered  Coalition!"  Sir,  this  charge  of  a  coalition, 
in  reference  to  the  late  administration,  is  not  original  with  the  hon- 
orable member.  It  did  not  spring  up  in  the  Senate.  Whether  as  a 
fact,  as  an  argument,  or  as  an  embellishment,  it  is  all  borrowed. 
He  adopts  it,  indeed,  from  a  very  low  origin,  and  a  still  lower  pre- 
sent condition.  It  is  one  of  the  thousand  calumnies  with  which  the 
press  teemed,  during  an  excited  political  canvass.  It  was  a  charge, 
of  which  there  was  not  only  no  proof  or  probability,  but  which  was, 
in  itself,  wholly  impossible  to  be  true.  JNoman  of  common  informa- 
tion ever  believed  a  syllable  of  it.  Yet  it  was  of  that  class  of  false- 
hoods, which,  by  continued  repetition,  through  all  the  organs  of  de- 
traction and  abuse,  are  capable  of  misleading  those  who  are  already 
far  misled,  and  of  further  fanning  passion,  already  kindling  into  flame. 
Doubtless  it  served  in  its  day,  and,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  the 
end  designed  by  it.  Having  done  that,  it  has  sunk  into  the  general 
mass  of  stale  and  loathed  calumnies.  It  is  the  very  cast  off  slough  of 
a  polluted  and  shameless  press.  Incapable  of  further  mischief,  it  lies 
in  the  sewer,  lifeless  and  despised.  It  is  not  now,  sir,  in  the  power 
of  the  honorable  member  to  give  it  dignity  or  decency,  by  attempting 
to  elevate  it,  and  to  introduce  it  into  the  Senate.  He  cannot  change 
48  HH* 


378 

it  from  what  it  is,  an  object  of  general  disgust  and  scorn. — On  the 
contrary,  the  contact,  if  he  choose  to  touch  it,  is  more  likely  to  drag 
him  down,  down,  to  the  place  where  it  lies  itself. 

But,  sir,  the  honorable  member  was  not,  for  other  reasons,  entirely 
happy  in  his  allusion  to  the  story  of  Banquo's  murder,  and  Banquo's 
ghost.  It  was  not,  I  think,  the  friends,  but  the  enemies  of  the  mur- 
dered Banquo,  at  whose  bidding  his  spirit  would  not  down.  The 
honorable  gentleman  is  fresh  in  his  reading  of  the  English  classics, 
and  can  put  me  right  if  I  am  wrong;  but,  according  to  my  poor 
recollection,  it  was  at  those  who  had  begun  with  caresses,  and  ended 
with  foul  and  treacherous  murder,  that  the  gory  locks  were  shaken! 
The  ghost  of  Banquo,  like  that  of  Hamlet,  was  an  honest  ghost. 
It  disturbed  no  innocent  man.  It  knew  where  its  appearance  would 
strike  terror,  and  who  would  cry  out,  a  ghost!  It  made  itself  visi- 
ble in  the  right  quarter,  and  compelled  the  guilty,  and  the  conscience 
smitten,  and  none  others,  to  start,  with, 

"  Pr'ythee,  see  there!  behold! — look!  lo 
If  Island  here,  I  saw  him!  " 

their  eyeballs  were  seared  (was  it  not  so,  sir?)  who  had  thought  to 
shield  themselves,  by  concealing  their  own  hand,  and  laying  the  im- 
putation of  the  crime  on  a  low  and  hireling  agency  in  wickedness; 
who  had  vainly  attempted  to  stifle  the  workings  of  their  own  cow- 
ard consciences,  by  ejaculating,  through  white  lips  and  chattering 
teeth,  "  Thou  canst  not  say  I  did  it!"  I  have  misread  the  great  poet 
if  those  who  had  no  way  partaken  in  the  deed  of  the  death,  either 
found  that  they  were,  or  feared  that  they  should  be,  pushed  from  their 
stools  by  the  ghost  of  the  slain,  or  exclaimed,  to  a  spectre  created 
by  their  own  fears,  and  their  own  remorse,  "  Avaunt!  and  quit  our 
sight!" 

There  is  another  particular,  sir,  in  which  the  honorable  member's 
quick  perception  of  resemblances  might,  I  should  think,  have  seen 
something  in  the  story  of  Banquo,  making  it  not  altogether  a  subject 
of  the  most  pleasant  contemplation.  Those  who  murdered  Banquo, 
what  did  they  win  by  it? — Substantial  good?  Permanent  power? 
Or  disappointment,  rather,  and  sore  mortification; — dust  and  ash- 
es— the  common  fate  of  vaulting  ambition,  overleaping  itself?  Did 
not  evenhanded  justice  ere  long  commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to 
their  own  lips?  Did  they  not  soon  find  that  for  another  they  had 
"filed  their  mind?"  that  their  ambition,  though  apparently  for  the 
moment  succesful,  had  but  put  a  barren  sceptre  in  their  grasp? — 
Ay,  sir, 

"  A  barren  sceptre  in  their  gripe, 

Thence  to  be  wrenched  by  an  unlineal  hand, 

No  son  oftheir's  succeeding." 

Sir,  I  need  pursue  the  allusion  no  farther.  I  leave  the  honora- 
ble gentleman  to  run  it  out  at  his  leisure,  and  to  derive  from  it  all 
the  gratification  it  is  calculated  to  administer.  If  he  finds  himself 
pleased  with  the  associations,  and  prepared  to  be  quite  satisfied, 
though  the  parallel  should  be  entirely  completed,  I  had  almost  said, 
I  am  satisfied  also — but  that  I  shall  think  of.  Yes,  sir,  I  will  think 
of  that. 


379 

In  the  course  of  my  observations  the  other  day,  Mr.  President,  I 
paid  a  passing  tribute  of  respect  to  a  very  worthy  man,  Mr.  Dane,  of 
Massachusetts.  It  so  happened  that  he  drew  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
for  the  government  of  the  northwestern  territory.  A  man  of  so 
much  ability,  and  so  little  pretence;  of  so  great  a  capacity  to  do  good, 
and  so  unmixed  a  disposition  to  do  it  for  its  own  sake;  a  gentleman 
who  had  acted  an  important  part,  forty  years  ago,  in  a  measure  the 
influence  of  which  is  still  deeply  felt  in  the  very  matter  which  was 
the  subject  of  debate,  might,  I  thought,  receive  from  me  a  commen- 
datory recognition. 

But  the  honorable  member  was  inclined  to  be  facetious  on  the  sub- 
ject. He  was  rather  disposed  to  make  it  matter  of  ridicule,  that  I 
had  introduced  into  the  debate  the  name  of  one  Nathan  Dane,  of  whom 
he  assures  us  he  had  never  before  heard.  Sir,  if  the  honorable 
member  had  never  before  heard  of  Mr.  Dane,  I  am  sorry  for  it.  It 
shows  him  less  acquainted  with  the  public  men  of  the  country,  than 
I  had  supposed.  Let  me  tell  him,  however,  that  a  sneer  from  him, 
at  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Mr.  Dane,  is  in  bad  taste.  It  may 
well  be  a  high  mark  of  ambition,  sir,  either  with  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman or  myself,  to  accomplish  as  much  to  make  our  names  known 
to  advantage,  and  remembered  with  gratitude,  as  Mr.  Dane  has  ac- 
complished. But  the  truth  is,  sir,  I  suspect,  that  Mr.  Dane  lives  a 
little  too  far  north.  He  is  of  Massachusetts,  and  too  near  the  north 
star  to  be  reached  by  the  honorable  gentleman's  telescope.  If  his 
sphere  had  happened  to  range  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  he  / 
might,  probably,  have  come  within  the  scope  of  his  vision! 

I  spoke,  sir,  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  which  prohibited  slavery, 
in  all  future  times,  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  as  a  measure  of  great  wis- 
dom and  foresight;  and  one  which  had  been  attended  with  highly  bene- 
ficial and  permanent  consequences.  I  supposed,  that  on  this  point, 
no  two  gentlemen  in  the  Senate  could  entertain  different  opinions. 
But,  the  simple  expression  of  this  sentiment  has  led  the  gentleman, 
not  only  into  a  labored  defence  of  slavery,  in  the  abstract,  and  on 
principle,  but,  also,  into  a  warm  accusation  against  me,  as  having 
attacked  the  system  of  domestic  slavery  now  existing  in  the  southern 
states.  For  all  this,  there  was  not  the  slightest  foundation,  in  any 
thing  said  or  intimated  by  me.  I  did  not  utter  a  single  word  which 
any  ingenuity  could  torture  into  an  attack  on  the  slavery  of  the  South. 
I  said,  only,  that  it  was  highly  wise  and  useful  in  legislating  for  the 
northwestern  country,  while  it  was  yet  a  wilderness,  to  prohibit  the 
introduction  of  slaves:  and  added,  that  I  presumed,  in  the  neighbour- 
ing state  of  Kentucky,  there  was  no  reflecting  and  intelligent  gen- 
tleman, who  would  doubt,  that  if  the  same  prohibition  had  been  ex- 
tended, at  the  same  early  period,  over  that  commonwealth,  her 
strength  and  population  would,  at  this  day,  have  been  far  greater 
than  they  are. — If  these  opinions  be  thought  doubtful,  they  are,  nev- 
ertheless, I  trust,  neither  extraordinary  nor  disrespectful.  They 
attack  nobody  and  menace  nobody.  And  yet,  sir,  the  gentleman's 
optics  have  discovered,  even  in  the  mere  expression  of  this  senti- 
ment, what  he  calls  the  very  spirit  of  the  Missouri  question!  He 
represents  me  as  making  an  onset  on  the  whole  South,  and  mani- 
festing a  spirit  which  would  intefere  with,  and  disturb,  their  domes- 


380 

tic  condition!  Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  surprises  me,  than  as 
it  is  committed  here,  and  committed  without  the  slightest  pretence 
of  ground  for  it.  I  say  it  only  surprises  me,  as  being  done  here; 
for  I  know  full  well,  that  it  is,  and  has  been,  the  settled  policy  of 
some  persons  in  the  South,  for  years,  to  represent  the  people  of  the 
North  as  disposed  to  intefere  with  them,  in  their  own  exclusive  and 
peculiar  concerns.  This  is  a  delicate  and  sensitive  point,  in  southern 
feeling;  and  of  late  years  it  has  always  been  touched,  and  generally 
with  effect,  whenever  the  object  has  been  to  unite  the  whole  South 
against  northern  men,  or  northern  measures.  This  feeling,  always 
carefully  kept  alive,  and  maintained  at  too  intense  a  heat  to  admit 
discrimination  or  reflection,  is  a  lever  of  great  power  in  our  political 
machine.  It  moves  vast  bodies,  and  gives  to  them  one  and  the  same 
direction. — But  it  is  without  all  adequate  cause;  and  the  suspicion 
which  exists,  wholly  groundless. — There  is  not,  and  never  has  been, 
a  disposition  in  the  North  to  intefere  with  these  interests  of  the  South. 
Such  interference  has  never  been  supposed  to  be  within  the  power 
of  government;  nor  has  it  been,  in  any  way,  attempted.  The  slavery 
of  the  South  has  always  been  regarded  as  a  matter  of  domestic  poli- 
cy, left  with  the  states  themselves,  and  with  which  the  federal  gov- 
ernment had  nothing  to  do.  Certainly,  sir,  I  am,  and  ever  have 
been  of  that  opinion.  The  gentleman,  indeed,  argues  that  slavery, 
in  the  abstract,  is  no  evil.  Most  assuredly,  1  need  not  say  I  differ 
with  him,  altogether  and  most  widely,  on  that  point.  I  regard  do- 
mestic slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  of  evils,  both  moral  and  polit- 
ical. But  though  it  be  a  malady,  and  whether  it  be  curable, 
and  if  so,  by  what  means;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  be  the 
vulnus  immedicabile  of  the  social  system,  I  leave  it  to  those  whose 
right  and  duty  it  is  to  inquire  and  to  decide.  And  this  I  believe,  sir, 
is,  and  uniformly  has  been,  the  sentiment  of  the  North.  Let  us  look 
a  little  at  the  history  of  this  matter. 

When  the  present  constitution  was  submitted  for  the  ratification 
of  the  people,  there  were  those  who  imagined  that  the  powers  of  the 
government  which  it  proposed  to  establish,  might,  perhaps,  in  some 
possible  mode,  be  exerted  in  measures  tending  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  This  suggestion  would  of  course  attract  much  attention  in 
the  southern  conventions.  In  that  of  Virginia,  Governor  Randolph 
said: 

"  I  hope  there  is  none  here,  who,  considering  the  subject  in  the 
calm  light  of  philosophy,  will  make  an  objection  dishonorable  to  Vir- 
ginia— that  at  the  moment  they  are  securing  the  rights  of  their 
citizens,  an  objection  is  started,  that  there  is  a  spark  of  hope  that  those 
unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage,  may,  by  the  operation  of  the 
general  government,  be  made  free." 

At  the  very  first  Congress,  petitions  on  the  subject  were  presented, 
if  I  mistake  not,  from  different  states.  The  Pennsylvania  society  for 
promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery  took  a  lead,  and  laid  before  Con- 
gress a  memorial,  praying  Congress  to  promote  the  abolition  by  such 
powers  as  it  possessed. — This  memorial  was  referred,  in  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives,  to  a  select  committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Foster,  of 
New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Gerry,  of  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Huntington,  of 
Connecticut,  Mr.  Lawrence,  of  New  York,  Mr.  Dickinson,  of  New 


381 

Jersey,  Mr.  Hartley  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Mr.  Parker,  of  Virginia, — 
all  of  them,  sir,  as  you  will  observe,  northern  men,  but  the  last. 
This  committee,  made  a  report,  which  was  committed  to  a  committee 
of  the  whole  House,  and  there  considered  and  discussed  on  several 
days;  and  being  amended,  although  without  material  alteration,  it 
was  made  to  express  three  distinct  propositions,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  and  the  Slave  Trade. — First,  in  the  words  of  the  con- 
stitution; that  Congress  could  not,  prior  to  the  year  1808,  prohibit  the 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  states,  then 
existing,  should  think  proper  to  admit.  Second,  that  Congress  had 
authority  to  restrain  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  from  carrying  on 
the  African  slave  trade,  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  foreign  coun- 
tries. On  this  proposition,  our  early  laws  against  those  who  engage 
in  that  traffic  are  founded.  The  third  proposition,  and  that  which 
bears  on  the  present  question,  was  expressed  in  the  following  terms: 

"  Resolved,  That  Congress  have  no  authority  to  interfere  in  the 
emancipation  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of  them  in  any  of  the 
states;  it  remaining  with  the  several  states  alone  to  provide  rules  and 
regulations  therein,  which  humanity  and  true  policy  may  require." 

This  resolution  received  the  sanction  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives so  early  as  March,  1790.  And  now,  sir,  the  honorable 
member  will  allow  me  to  remind  him,  that  not  only  were  the  select 
committee  who  reported  the  resolution,  with  a  single  exception,  all 
northern  men,  but  also  that  of  the  members  then  composing  the 
House  of  Representatives,  a  large  majority,  I  believe  nearly  two- 
thirds,  were  northern  men  also. 

The  House  agreed  to  insert  these  resolutions  in  its  journal;  and 
from  that  day  to  this,  it  has  never  been  maintained  or  contended, 
that  Congress  had  any  authority  to  regulate,  or  interfere  with,  the 
condition  of  slaves  in  the  several  states.  No  northern  gentleman, 
to  my  knowledge,  has  moved  any  such  question  in  either  House  of 
Congress. 

The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears  they  might  have  entertain- 
ed, were  allayed  and  quieted  by  this  early  decision;  and  so  remain- 
ed, till  they  were  excited  afresh,  without  cause,  but  for  collateral 
and  indirect  purposes.  When  it  become  necessary,  or  was  thought 
so,  by  some  political  persons,  to  find  an  unvarying  ground  for  the 
exclusion  of  northern  men  from  confidence  and  from  lead  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Republic,  then,  and  not  till  then,  the  cry  was  raised, 
and  the  feeling  industriously  excited,  that  the  influence  of  north- 
ern men  in  the  public  councils  would  endanger  the  relation  of 
master  and  slave.  For  myself,  I  claim  no  other  merit,  than  that 
this  gross  and  enormous  injustice  towards  the  whole  North,  has  not 
wrought  upon  me  to  change  my  opinions,  or  my  political  conduct. 
I  hope  I  am  above  violating  my  principles,  even  under  the  smart  of 
injury  and  false  imputations.  Unjust  suspicions  and  undeserved  re- 
proach, whatever  pain  I  may  experience  from  them,  will  not  induce 
me,  I  trust,  nevertheless,  to  overstep  the  limits  of  constitutional 
duty,  or  to  encroach  on  the  rights  of  others.  The  domestic  slavery 
of  the  South  I  leave  where  I  find  it — in  the  hands  of  their  own  gov- 
ernments. It  is  their  affair,  not  mine.  Nor  do  I  complain  of  the 
peculiar  effect  which  the  magnitude  of  that  population  has  had  in 


382 

the  distribution  of  power  under  this  federal  government.  We  know, 
sir,  that  the  representation  of  the  states  in  the  other  House  is  not 
equal.  We  know  that  great  advantage,  in  that  respect,  is  enjoyed 
by  the  slave-holding  states  ;  and  we  know,  too,  that  the  intended 
equivalent  for  that  advantage,  that  is  to  say,  the  imposition  of  direct 
taxes  in  the  same  ratio,  has  become  merely  nominal;  thejiabit  of  the 
government  being  almost  invariably  to  collect  its  revenue  from  other 
sources  and  in  other  modes.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  complain:  nor 
would  I  countenance  any  movement  to  alter  this  arrangement  of 
representation.  It  is  the  original  bargain,  the  compact — let  it  stand; 
let  the  advantage  of  it  be  fully  enjoyed.  The  union  itself  is  too 
full  of  benefit  to  be  hazarded  in  propositions  for  changing  its  origi- 
nal basis.  I  go  for  the  constitution  as  it  is,  and  for  the  union  as  it  is. 
But  I  am  resolved  not  to  submit,  in  silence,  to  accusations,  either 
against  myself  individually,  or  against  the  North,  wholly  unfounded 
and  unjust;  accusations  which  impute  to  us  a  disposition  to  evade  the 
constitutional  compact,  and  to  extend  the  power  of  the  government 
over  the  internal  laws  and  domestic  condition  of  the  states.  All 
such  accusations,  wherever  and  whenever  made,  all  insinuations  of 
the  existence  of  any  such  purposes,  I  know,  and  feel  to  be  groun- 
dless and  injurious.  And  we  must  confide  in  southern  gentlemen 
themselves;  we  must  trust  to  those  whose  integrity  of  heart  and 
magnanimity  of  feeling  will  lead  them  to  a  desire  to  maintain  and 
disseminate  truth,  and  who  possess  the  means  of  its  diffusion  with 
the  southern  public;  we  must  leave  it  to  them  to  disabuse  that  public 
of  its  prejudices.  But,  in  the  meantime,  for  my  own  part,  I  shall 
continue  to  act  justly,  whether  those  towards  whom  justice  is  ex- 
ercised receive  it  with  candor  or  with  contumely. 

Having  had  occasion  to  recur  to  the  ordinance  of  1787,  in  order  to 
defend  myself  against  the  inferences  which  the  honorable  member 
has  chosen  to  draw  from  my  former  observations  on  that  subject,  I 
am  not  willing  now  entirely  to  take  leave  of  it  without  another  re- 
mark. It  need  hardly  be  said,  that  that  paper  expresses  just  sen- 
timents on  the  great  subject  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Such 
sentiments  were  common,  and  abound  in  all  our  state  papers  of  that 
day.  But  this  ordinance  did  that  which  was  not  so  common,  and 
which  is  not,  even  now,  universal;  that  is,  it  set  forth  and  declared, 
as  a  high  and  binding  duty  of  government  itself,  to  encourage  schools, 
and  advance  the  means  of  education;  on  the  plain  reason,  that  re- 
ligion, morality,  and  knowledge,  are  necessary  to  good  government, 
and  to  the  happiness  of  mankind.  One  observation  further.  The 
important  provision  incorporated  into  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  several  of  those  of  the  states,  and  recently,  as  we  have 
seen,  adopted  into  the  reformed  constitution  of  Virginia,  restraining 
legislative  power,  in  questions  of  private  right,  and  from  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts,  is  first  introduced  and  established,  as  far 
as  I  am  informed,  as  matter  of  express  written  constitutional  law, 
in  this  ordinance  of  1787.  And  I  must  add,  also,  in  regard  to  the 
author  of  the  ordinance,  who  has  not  had  the  happiness  to  attract 
the  gentleman's  notice,  heretofore,  nor  to  avoid  his  sarcasm  now,  that 
he  was  chairman  of  that  select  committee  of  the  old  Congress, 
whose  report  first  expressed  the  strong  sense  of  that  body,  that  the 


383 

old  confederation  was  not  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  country, 
and  recommending  to  the  states  to  send  delegates  to  the  convention 
which  formed  the  present  constitution. — (Note  1.) 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  transfer,  from  the  north  to  the  south, 
the  honor  of  this  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  northwestern  terri- 
tory. The  journal,  without  argument  or  comment,  refutes  such  at- 
tempt. The  cession  by  Virginia  was  made,  March,  1784.  On  the 
19th  of  April  following,  a  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Jeffer- 
son, Chase,  and  Howell,  reported  a  plan  for  a  temporary  govern- 
ment of  the  territory,  in  which  was  this  article:  "  that,  after  the 
year  1800,  there  shall  be  neither  slavery,  nor  involuntary  servitude 
in  any  of  the  said  states,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crimes, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  convicted."  Mr.  Spaight,  of 
North  Carolina,  moved  to  strike  out  this  paragraph.  The  question 
was  put,  according  to  the  form  then  practised:  "  shall  these  words 
stand,  as  part  of  the  plan,"  &c.  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsyl- 
vania— seven  states  voted  in  the  affirmative.  Maryland,  Virginia, 
and  South  Carolina,, in  the  negative.  North  Carolina  was  divided. 
As  the  consent  of  nine  states  was  necessary,  the  words  could  not 
stand,  and  were  struck  out  accordingly.  Mr.  Jefferson  voted  for 
the  clause,  but  was  overruled  by  his  colleagues. 

In  March  of  the  next  year,  (1785,)  Mr.  King,  of  Massachusetts, 
seconded  by  Mr.  Ellery,  of  Rhode  Island,  proposed  the  formerly  re- 
jected article,  with  this  addition — Jlnd  that  this  regulation  shall  be  an 
article  of  compact ,  and  remain  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  constitutions 
between  the  thirteen  original  states,  and  each  of  the  states  described  in  the 
Resolve ,"  &c.  On  this  clause,  which  provided  the  adequate  and 
thorough  security,  the  eight  northern  states  at  that  time  voted  af- 
firmatively, and  the  four  southern  states  negatively.  The  votes  of 
nine  states  were  not  yet  obtained,  and  thus,  the  provision  was  again 
rejected  by  the  southern  states.  The  perseverance  of  the  North 
held  out,  and  two  years  afterwards  the  object  was  attained.  It  is 
no  derogation  from  the  credit,  whatever  that  may  be,  of  drawing 
the  ordinance,  that  its  principles  had  before  been  prepared  and  dis- 
cussed, in  the  form  of  resolutions.  If  one  should  reason  in  that 
way,  what  would  become  of  the  distinguished  honor  of  the  author 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence?  There  is  not  a  sentiment  in 
that  paper  which  had  not  been  voted  and  resolved  in  the  assemblies, 
and  other  popular  bodies  in  the  country,  over  and  over  again. 

But  the  honorable  member  has  now  found  out  that  this  gentleman 
(Mr.  Dane)  was  a  member  of  the  Hartford  Convention.  However 
uninformed  the  honorable  member  may  be  of  characters  and  occur- 
rences at  the  North,  it  would  seem  that  he  has  at  his  elbow,  on  this 
occasion,  some  high-minded  and  lofty  spirit,  some  magnanimous  and 
true-hearted  monitor,  possessing  the  means  of  local  knowledge,  and 
ready  to  supply  the  honorable  member  with  everything,  down  even 
to  forgotten  and  moth-eaten  two-penny  pamphlets,  which  may 
be  used  to  the  disadvantage  of  his  own  country.  But,  as  to  the 
Hartford  Convention,  sir,  allow  me  to  say,  that  the  proceedings  of 
that  body  seem  now  to  be  less  read  and  studied  in  New  England 
than  farther  south.     They  appear  to  be  looked  to,  not  in  New  Eng- 


384 

land,  but  elsewhere,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  how  far  they  may 
serve  as  a  precedent.  But  they  will  not  answer  the  purpose — they 
are  quite  too  tame.  The  latitude  in  which  they  originated  was  too 
cold.  Other  conventions,  of  more  recent  existence,  have  gone  a 
whole  bar's  length  beyond  it.  The  learned  doctors  of  Colleton  and 
Abbeville  have  pushed  their  commentaries  on  the  Hartford  collect 
so  far  that  the  original  text-writers  are  thrown  entirely  into  the  shade 
I  havfe  nothing  to  do,  sir,  with  the  Hartford  Convention.  Its  jour- 
nal, which  the  gentleman  has  quoted,  I  never  read.  So  far  as  the 
honorable  member  may  discover  in  its  proceedings  a  spirit,  in  any 
degree  resembling  that  which  was  avowed  and  justified  in  those 
other  conventions  to  which  T  have  alluded,  or  so  far  as  those  proceed- 
ings can  be  shown  to  be  disloyal  to  the  constitution,  or  tending  to 
disunion,  so  far  I  shall  be  as  ready  as  any  one  to  bestow  on  them 
reprehension  and  censure. 

Having  dwelt  long  on  this  convention,  and  other  occurrences  of 
that  day,  in  the  hope,  probably,  (which  will  not  be  gratified)  that  I 
should  leave  the  course  of  this  debate  to  follow  him,  at  length,  in 
those  excursions,  the  honorable  member  returned,  and  attempted 
another  object.  He  referred  to  a  speech  of  mine  in  the  other  House, 
the  same  which  I  had  occasion  to  allude  to  myself  the  other  day; 
and  has  quoted  a  passage  or  two  from  it,  with  a  bold,  though  uneasy 
and  laboring  air  of  confidence,  as  if  he  had  detected  in  me  an  incon- 
sistency. Judging  from  the  gentleman's  manner,  a  stranger  to  the 
course  of  the  debate,  and  to  the  point  in  discussion,  would  have 
imagined,  from  so  triumphant  a  tone,  that  the  honorable  member  was 
about  to  overwhelm  me  with  a  manifest  contradiction.  Any  one 
who  heard  him,  and  who  had  not  heard  what  I  had,  in  fact,  previ- 
ously said,  must  have  thought  me  routed  and  discomfited,  as  the 
gentleman  had  promised.  Sir,  a  breath  blows  all  this  triumph  away. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  in  the  sentiments  of  my  remarks 
on  the  two  occasions.  What  I  said  here  on  Wednesday,  is  in  exact 
accordance  with  the  opinion  expressed  by  me  in  the  other  House  in 
1825.  Though  the  gentleman  had  the  metaphysics  of  Hudibras — 
though  he  were  able 

"  To  sever  and  divide 

A  hair  Hwixt  north  and  northwest  side," 

he  yet  could  not  insert  his  metaphysical  scissors  between  the  fair 
reading  of  my  remarks  in  1825,  and  what  I  said  here  last  week. 
There  is  not  only  no  contradiction,  no  difference,  but,  in  truth,  too 
exact  a  similarity,  both  in  thought  and  language,  to  be  entirely  in 
just  taste.  I  had  myself  quoted  the  same  speech;  had  recurred  to 
it,  and  spoke  with  it  open  before  me;  and  much  of  what  I  said  was 
little  more  than  a  repetition  from  it.  In  order  to  make  finishing  work 
with  this  alleged  contradiction,  permit  me  to  recur  to  the  origin  of 
this  debate,  and  review  its  course.  This  seems  expedient,  and  may 
be  done  as  well  now  as  at  any  time. 

Well,  then,  its  history  is  this:  The  honorable  member  from  Con- 
necticut moved  a  resolution,  which  constitutes  the  first  branch  of 
that  which  is  now  before  us;  that  is  to  say,  a  resolution,  instructing 
the  committee  on  public  lands  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
limiting,  for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  to  such 


385 

as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for  sale;  and  whether  sundry  offices 
connected  with  the  sales  of  the  lands,  might  not  be  abolished,  with- 
out detriment  to  the  public  service. 

In  the  progress  of  the  discussion  which  arose  on  this  resolution, 
an  honorable  member  from  New  Hampshire  moved  to  amend  the 
resolution,  so  as  entirely  to  reverse  its  object;  that  is,  to  strike  it  all 
out,  and  insert  a  direction  to  the  committee  to  inquire  into  tije  ex- 
pediency of  adopting  measures  to  hasten  the  sales,  and  extena  more 
rapidly  the  surveys  of  the  lands. 

The  honorable  member  from  Maine,  [Mr.  Sprague,]  suggested 
that  both  those  propositions  might  well  enough  go  for  consideration 
to  the  committee;  and  in  this  state  of  the  question,  the  member  from 
South  Carolina  addressed  the  Senate  in  his  first  speech.  He  rose, 
he  said,  to  give  us  his  own  free  thoughts  on  the  public  lands.  I  saw 
him  rise,  with  pleasure,  and  listened  with  expectation,  though  before 
he  concluded,  I  was  filled  with  surprise.  Certainly,  I  was  never 
more  surprised,  than  to  find  him  following  up,  to  the  extent  he  did, 
the  sentiments  and  opinions,  which  the  gentleman  from  Missouri 
had  put  forth,  and  which  it  is  known  he  has  long  entertained. 

I  need  not  repeat  at  large  the  general  topics  of  the  honorable 
gentleman's  speech. — When  he  said  yesterday,  that  he  did  not  at- 
tack the  eastern  states,  he  certainly  must  have  forgotten,  not  only 
particular  remarks,  but  the  whole  drift  and  tenor  of  his  speech;  un- 
less he  means,  by  not  attacking,  that  he  did  not  commence  hostili- 
ties,— but  that  another  had  preceded  him  in  the  attack.  He,  in  the 
first  place,  disapproved  of  the  whole  course  of  the  government,  for 
forty  years,  in  regard  to  its  dispositions  of  the  public  land;  and  then 
turning  northward  and  eastward,  and  fancying  he  had  found  a  cause 
for  alleged  narrowness  and  niggardliness  in  the  "  accursed  policy" 
of  the  tariff,  to  which  he  represented  the  people  of  New  England  as 
wedded,  he  went  on,  for  a  full  hour,  with  remarks,  the  whole  scope 
of  which  was  to  exhibit  the  results  of  this  policy,  in  feelings  and  in 
measures  unfavorable  to  the  west.  I  thought  his  opinions  unfoun- 
ded and  erroneous,  as  to  the  general  course  of  the  government,  and 
ventured  to  reply  to  them. 

The  gentleman  had  remarked  on  the  analogy  of  other  cases,  and 
quoted  the  conduct  of  European  governments  towards  their  own 
subjects,  settling  on  this  continent,  as  in  point,  to  show,  that  we  had 
been  harsh  and  rigid  in  selling,  when  we  should  have  given  the  pub- 
lic lands  to  settlers,  without  price.  I  thought  the  honorable  mem- 
ber had  suffered  his  judgment  to  be  betrayed  by  a  false  analogy; 
that  he  was  struck  with  an  appearance  of  resemblance,  where  there 
was  no  real  similitude.  I  think  so  still.  The  first  settlers  of  North 
America  were  enterprising  spirits,  engaged  in  private  adventure,  or 
fleeing  from  tyranny  at  home.  When  arrived  here,  they  were  for- 
gotten by  the  mother  country,  or  remembered  only  to  be  oppressed. 
Carried  away  again  by  the  appearance  of  analogy,  or  struck  with 
the  eloquence  of  the  passage,  the  honorable  member  yesterday  ob- 
served, that  the  conduct  of  government  towards  the  western  emi- 
grants, or  my  representation  of  it,  brought  to  his  mind  a  celebrated 
speech  in  the  British  parliament.  It  was,  sir,  the  speech  of  Col. 
Barre.  On  the  question  of  the  stamp  act,  or  tea  tax,  I  forget  which, 
49  ii 


386 

Col.  Barre  had  heard  a  member  on  the  treasury  bench  argue,  that 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  being  British  colonists,  planted  by 
the  maternal  care,  nourished  by  the  indulgence,  and  protected  by 
the  arms  of  England,  would  not  grudge  their  mite  to  relieve  the 
mother  country  from  the  heavy  burden  under  which  she  groaned. 
The  language  of  Col.  Barre,  in  reply  to  this,  was — They  planted  by 
your  ^are  ?  Your  oppression  planted  them  in  America.  They  fled 
from  your  tyranny,  and  grew  by  your  neglect  of  them.  So  soon  as 
you  began  to  care  for  them,  you  showed  your  care  by  sending  per- 
sons to  spy  out  their  liberties,  misrepresent  their  character,  prey 
upon  them  and  eat  out  their  substance. 

And  how  does  the  honorable  gentleman  mean  to  maintain,  that 
language  like  this  is  applicable  to  the  conduct  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States  towards  the  western  emigrants,  or  to  any  repre- 
sentation given  by  me  of  that  conduct?  Were  the  settlers  in  the 
West  driven  thither  by  our  oppression?  Have  they  flourished  only 
by  our  neglect  of  them?  Has  the  government  done  nothing  but  to 
prey  upon  them,  and  eat  out  their  substance  ?  Sir,  this  fervid  elo- 
quence of  the  British  speaker,  just,  when  and  where  it  was  uttered, 
and  fit  to  remain  an  exercise  for  the  schools,  is  not  a  little  out  of 
place,  when  it  is  brought  thence  to  be  applied  here,  to  the  conduct 
of  our  own  country  towards  her  own  citizens.  From  America  to 
England,  it  may  be  true;  from  Americans  to  their  own  government 
it  would  be  strange  language.  Let  us  leave  it,  to  be  recited  and 
declaimed  by  our  boys,  against  a  foreign  nation;  not  introduce  it 
here,  to  recite  and  declaim  ourselves  against  our  own. 

But  I  come  to  the  point  of  the  alleged  contradiction.  In  my  re- 
marks on  Wednesday,  I  contended  that  we  could  not  give  away 
gratuitously  all  the  public  lands;  that  we  held  them  in  trust;  that  the 
government  had  solemnly  pledged  itself  to  dispose  of  them  as  a 
common  fund  for  the  common  benefit,  and  to  sell  and  settle  them  as 
its  discretion  should  dictate.  Now,  sir,  what  contradiction  does  the 
gentleman  find  to  this  sentiment,  in  the  speech  of  1825?  He  quotes 
me  as  having  then  said,  that  we  ought  not  to  hug  these  lands  as  a 
very  great  treasure.  Very  well,  sir,  supposing  me  to  be  accurately 
reported,  in  that  expression,  what  is  the  contradiction?  I  have  not 
now  said,  that  we  should  hug  these  lands  as  a  favorite  source  of  pe- 
cuniary income.  No  such  thing.  It  is  not  my  view.  What  I  have 
said,  and  what  I  do  say,  is,  that  they  are  a  common  fund — to  be 
disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit — to  be  sold  at  low  prices  for  the 
accommodation  of  settlers,  keeping  the  object  of  settling  the  lands  as 
much  in  view,  as  that  of  raising  money  from  them.  This  I  say 
now,  and  this  I  have  always  said.  Is  this  hugging  them  as  a  favor- 
ite treasure?  Is  there  no  difference  between  hugging  and  hoarding 
this  fund,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  great  treasure,  and  on  the  other,  of 
disposing  of  it  at  low  prices,  placing  the  proceeds  in  the  general 
treasury  of  the  union?  My  opinion  is,  that  as  much  is  to  be  made 
of  the  land,  as  fairly  and  reasonably  may  be,  selling  it  all  the  while 
at  such  rates  as  to  give  the  fullest  effect  to  settlement. — This  is  not 
giving  it  all  away  to  the  states,  as  the  gentleman  would  propose;  nor 
is  it  hugging  the  fund  closely  and  tenaciously,  as  a  favorite  treasure; 
but  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  just  and  wise  policy,  perfectly  according 


387 

with  all  the  various  duties  which  rest  on  government.  So  much  for 
my  contradiction.  And  what  is  it?  Where  is  the  ground  of  the 
gentleman's  triumph?  What  inconsistency  in  word  or  doctrine,  has 
he  been  able  to  detect  ?  Sir,  if  this  be  a  sample  of  that  discomfiture, 
with  which  the  honorable  gentleman  threatened  me,  commend  me  to 
the  word  discomfiture  for  the  rest  of  my  life. 

But,  after  all,  this  is  not  the  point  of  the  debate;  and  I  must  now 
bring  the  gentleman  back  to  what  is  the  point. 

The  real  question  between  me  and  him  is,  has  the  doctrine  been 
advanced  at  the  South  or  the  East,  that  the  population  of  the  West 
should  be  retarded,  or  at  least  need  not  be  hastened,  on  account  of 
its  effect  to  drain  off  the  people  from  the  Atlantic  states?  Is  this  doc- 
trine, as  has  been  alleged,  of  eastern  origin?  That  is  the  question. 
Has  the  gentleman  found  anything,  by  which  he  can  make  good  his 
accusation?  I  submit  to  the  Senate,  that  he  has  entirely  failed;  and 
as  far  as  this  debate  has  shown,  the  only  person  who  has  advanced 
such  sentiments,  is  a  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  and  a  friend 
to  the  honorable  member  himself. — The  honorable  gentleman  has 
given  no  answer  to  this;  there  is  none  which  can  be  given.  The 
simple  fact,  while  it  requires  no  comment  to  enforce  it,  defies  all  ar- 
gument to  refute  it.  I  could  refer  to  the  speeches  of  another  south- 
ern gentleman,  in  years  before,  of  the  same  general  character,  and 
to  the  same  effect,  as  that  which  has  been  quoted;  but  I  will  not  con- 
sume the  time  of  the  Senate  by  the  reading  of  them. 

So  then,  sir,  New  England  is  guiltless  of  the  policy  of  retarding 
western  population,  and  of  all  envy  and  jealousy  of  the  growth  of  the 
new  states.  Whatever  there  be  of  that  policy  in  the  country,  no  part 
of  it  is  her's.  If  it  has  a  local  habitation,  the  honorable  member  has 
probably  seen,  by  this  time,  where  to  look  for  it;  and  if  it  now  has  re- 
ceived a  name,  he  has  himself  christened  it. 

We  approach,  at  length,  sir,  to  a  more  important  part  of  the  hon- 
orable gentleman's  observations.  Since  it  does  not  accord  with  my 
views  of  justice  and  policy  to  give  away  the  public  lands  altogether, 
as  mere  matter  of  gratuity,  I  am  asked  by  the  honorable  gentleman 
on  what  ground  it  is,  that  I  consent  to  vote  them  away  in  particu- 
lar instances?  How,  he  inquires,  do  I  reconcile  with  these  profess- 
ed sentiments,  my  support  of  measures  appropriating  portions  of  the 
lands  to  particular  roads,  particular  canals,  particular  rivers,  and  par- 
ticular institutions  of  education  in  the  West?  This  leads,  sir,  to  the 
real  and  wide  difference,  in  political  opinion,  between  the  honorable 
gentleman  and  myself.  On  my  part,  I  look  upon  all  these  objects, 
as  connected  with  the  common  good,  fairly  embraced  in  its  object 
and  its  terms;  he,  on  the  contrary,  deems  them  all,  if  good  at  all, 
only  local  good.  This  is  our  difference.  The  interrogatory  which 
he  proceeded  to  put,  at  once  explains  this  difference.  u  What  inter- 
est," asks  he,  "  has  South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in  Ohio?"  Sir,  this 
very  question  is  full  of  significance.  It  developes  the  gentleman's 
whole  political  system;  and  its  answer  expounds  mine.  Here  we  dif- 
fer. I  look  upon  a  road  over  the  Alleghany,  a  canal  round  the  falls 
of  the  Ohio,  or  a  canal  or  railway  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  western 
waters,  as  being  an  object  large  and  extensive  enough  to  be  fairly 
said  to  be  for  the  common  benefit.     The  gentleman  thinks  otherwise, 


388 

and  this  is  the  key  to  open  his  construction  of  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment. He  may  well  ask  what  interest  has  South  Carolina  in  a 
canal  in  Ohio?  On  his  system,  it  is  true,  she  has  no  interest.  On 
that  system,  Ohio  and  Carolina  are  different  governments,  and  dif- 
ferent countries:  connected  here,  it  is  true,  by  some  slight  and  ill  de- 
fined bond  of  union,  but,  in  all  main  respects,  separate  and  diverse. 
On  that  system,  Carolina  has  no  more  interest  in  a  canal  in  Ohio  than 
in  Mexico.  The  gentleman,  therefore,  only  follows  out  his  own  prin- 
ciples; he  does  no  more  than  arrive  at  the  natural  conclusions  of  his 
own  doctrines;  he  only  announces  the  true  results  of  that  creed, 
which  he  has  adopted  himself,  and  would  persuade  others  to  adopt, 
when  he  thus  declares  that  South  Carolina  has  no  interest  in  a  pub- 
lic work  in  Ohio.  Sir,  we  narrow-minded  people  of  New  England 
do  not  reason  thus.  Our  notion  of  things  is  entirely  different.  We 
look  upon  the  states  not  as  separated,  but  as  united.  We  love  to 
dwell  on  that  union,  and  on  the  mutual  happiness  which  it  has  so 
much  promoted,  and  the  common  renown  which  it  has  so  greatly  con- 
tributed to  acquire.  In  our  contemplation,  Carolina  and  Ohio  are 
parts  of  the  same  country;  states,  united  under  the  same  general  gov- 
ernment, having  interests,  common,  associated,  intermingled.  In 
whatever  is  within  the  proper  sphere  of  the  constitutional  power  of 
this  government,  we  look  upon  the  states  as  one.  We  do  not  impose 
geographical  limits  to  our  patriotic  feeling  or  regard;  we  do  not  follow 
rivers  and  mountains,  and  lines  of  latitude,  to  find  boundaries,  be- 
yond which  public  improvements  do  not  benefit  us.  We  who  come 
here,  as  agents  and  representatives  of  these  narrow-minded  and  sel- 
fish men  of  New  England,  consider  ourselves  as  bound  to  regard, 
with  an  equal  eye,  the  good  of  the  whole,  in  whatever  is  within  our 
power  of  legislation.  Sir,  if  a  rail  road  or  canal,  beginning  in  South 
Carolina  and  ending  in  South  Carolina,  appeared  to  me  to  be  of  na- 
tional importance  and  national  magnitude,  believing,  as  I  do,  that  the 
power  of  government  extends  to  the  encouragement  of  works  of  that 
description,  if  I  were  to  stand  up  here,  and  ask,  what  interest  has 
Massachusetts  in  a  rail  road  in  South  Carolina,  I  should  not  be  will- 
ing to  face  my  constituents.  These  same  narrow-minded  men  would 
tell  me,  that  they  had  sent  me  to  act  for  the  whole  country,  and  that 
one  who  possessed  too  littLe  comprehension,  either  of  intellect  or 
feeling;  one  who  was  not  large  enough,  both  in  mind  and  in  heart, 
to  embrace  the  whole,  was  not  fit  to  be  entrusted  with  the  interest  of 
any  part.  Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment, by  unjustifiable  construction;  nor  to  exercise  any  not  within 
a  fair  interpretation.  But  when  it  is  believed  that  a  power  does  ex- 
ist, then  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  exercised  for  the  general  bene- 
fit of  the  whole.  So  far  as  respects  the  exercise  of  such  a  power, 
the  states  are  one.  It  was  the  very  object  of  the  constitution  to  cre- 
ate unity  of  interests  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment. In  war  and  peace  we  are  one;  in  commerce,  one;  because 
the  authority  of  the  general  government  reaches  to  war  and  peace, 
and  to  the  regulation  of  commerce.  I  have  never  seen  any  more 
difficulty  in  erecting  light  houses  on  the  lakes,  than  on  the  ocean; 
in  improving  the  harbours  of  inland  seas,  than  if  they  were  within 
the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide;  or  of  removing  obstructions  in  the  vast 


389 

streams  of  the  West,  more  than  in  any  work  to  facilitate  commerce 
on  the  Atlantic  coast.  If  there  be  any  power  for  one,  there  is  pow- 
er also  for  the  other;  and  they  are  all  and  equally  for  the  common 
good  of  the  country. 

There  are  other  objects,  apparently  more  local,  or  the  benefit  of 
which  is  less  general,  towards  which,  nevertheless,  I  have  concurred 
with  others,  to  give  aid,  by  donations  of  land.  It  is  proposed  to  con- 
struct a  road,  in  or  through  one  of  the  new  states,  in  which  this  gov- 
ernment possesses  large  quantities  of  land.  Have  the  United  States 
no  right,  or,  as  a  great  and  untaxed  proprietor,  are  they  under  no  ob- 
ligation, to  contribute  to  an  object  thus  calculated  to  promote  the 
common  good  of  all  the  proprietors,  themselves  included  i  And  even 
with  respect  to  education,  which  is  the  extreme  case,  let  the  question 
be  considered. — In  the  first  place,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  made  mat- 
ter of  compact  with  these  states,  that  they  should  do  their  part  to 
promote  education.  In  the  next  place,  our  whole  system  of  land 
laws  proceeds  on  the  idea  that  education  is  for  the  common  good;  be- 
cause, in  every  division,  a  certain  portion  is  uniformly  reserved  and 
appropriated  for  the  use  of  schools.  And,  finally,  have  not  these 
new  states  singularly  strong  claims,  founded  on  the  ground  already 
stated,  that  the  government  is  a  great  untaxed  proprietor,  in  the 
ownership  of  the  soil  ?  It  is  a  consideration  of  great  importance, 
that,  probably,  there  is  in  no  part  of  the  country,  or  of  the  world,  so 
great  call  for  the  means  of  education,  as  in  those  new  states;  owing 
to  the  vast  numbers  of  persons  within  those  ages  in  which  education 
and  instruction  are  usually  received,  if  received  at  all.  This  is  the 
natural  consequence  of  recency  of  settlement  and  rapid  increase. 
The  census  of  these  states  shows  how  great  a  proportion  of  the  whole 
population  occupies  the  classes  between  infancy  and  manhood.  These 
are  the  wide  fields,  and  here  is  the  deep  and  quick  soil  for  the  seeds 
of  knowledge  and  virtue;  and  this  is  the  favored  season,  the  very 
spring-time  for  sowing  them.  Let  them  be  disseminated  without 
stint.  Let  them  be  scattered  with  a  bountiful,  broad  cast.  What- 
ever the  government  can  fairly  do  towards  these  objects,  in  my 
opinion,  ought  to  be  done. 

These,  sir,  are  the  grounds  succinctly  stated,  on  which  my  votes 
for  grants  of  lands  for  particular  objects  rest;  while  I  maintain,  at 
the  same  time,  that  it  is  all  a  common  fund,  for  the  common  benefit. 
And  reasons  like  these,  I  presume,  have  influenced  the  votes  of  other 
gentlemen  from  New  England.  Those  who  have  a  different  view 
of  the  powers  of  the  government,  of  course,  come  to  different  con- 
clusions, on  these,  as  on  other  questions.  I  observed,  when  speak- 
ing on  this  subject  before,  that,  if  we  looked  to  any  measure,  wheth- 
er for  a  road,  a  canal,  or  anything  else,  intended  for  the  improvement 
of  the  West,  it  would  be  found,  that,  if  the  New  England  ayes  were 
struck  out  of  the  lists  of  votes,  the  southern  noes  would  always  have 
rejected  the  measure.  The  truth  of  this  has  not  been  denied,  and 
cannot  be  denied.  In  stating  this,  I  thought  it  just  to  ascribe  it  to 
the  constitutional  scruples  of  the  South,  rather  than  to  any  other 
less  favorable  or  less  charitable  cause.  But  no  sooner  had  I  done 
this,  than  the  honorable  gentleman  asks  if  I  reproach  him  and  his 
friends  with  their  constitutional  scruples. — Sir,  I  reproach  nobody — 


390 

I  stated  a  fact,  and  gave  the  most  respectful  reason  for  it  that  occur- 
red to  me.  The  gentleman  cannot  deny  the  fact;  he  may,  if  he 
choose,  disclaim  the  reason.  It  is  not  long  since  I  had  occasion,  in 
presenting  a  petition  from  his  own  state,  to  account  for  its  being 
entrusted  to  my  hands,  by  saying,  that  the  constitutional  opinions  of 
the  gentleman  and  his  worthy  colleague,  prevented  them  from  sup- 
porting it.  Sir,  did  I  state  this  as  matter  of  reproach?  Far  from 
it.  Did  I  attempt  to  find  any  other  cause  than  an  honest  one,  for 
these  scruples?  Sir,  I  did  not.  It  did  not  become  me  to  doubt  or 
to  insinuate  that  the  gentleman  had  either  changed  his  sentiments, 
or  that  he  had  made  up  a  set  of  constitutional  opinions,  accommoda- 
ted to  any  particular  combination  of  political  occurrences.  Had  I 
done  so,  I  should  have  felt,  that,  while  I  was  entitled  to  little  credit 
in  thus  questioning  other  people's  motives,  I  justified  the  whole 
world  in  suspecting  my  own.  But  how  has  the  gentleman  returned 
this  respect  for  others'  opinions?  His  own  candor  and  justice,  how 
have  they  been  exhibited  towards  the  motives  of  others,  while  he  has 
been  at  so  much  pains  to  maintain,  what  nobody  has  disputed,  the 
purity  of  his  own  ?  Why,  sir,  he  has  asked  when,  and  how,  and  why, 
New  England  votes  were  found  going  for  measures  favorable  to  the 
West  ?  He  has  demanded  to  be  informed  whether  all  this  did  not  begin 
in  1825,  and  while  the  election  of  president  was  still  pending?  Sir,  to 
these  questions  retort  would  be  justified;  and  it  is  both  cogent,  and 
at  hand.  Nevertheless,  I  will  answer  the  inquiry,  not  by  retort,  but 
by  facts.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman  when,  and  how,  and  why,  New  Eng- 
land has  supported  measures  favorable  to  the  West.  I  have  already 
referred  to  the  early  history  of  the  government — to  the  first  acqui- 
siti  n  of  the  lands — to  the  original  laws  for  disposing  of  them,  and  for 
governing  the  territories  where  they  lie;  and  have  shown  the  influ- 
ence  of  New  England  men  and  New  England  principles  in  all  these 
leading  measures.  I  should  not  be  pardoned  were  I  to  go  over  thai 
ground  again.  Coming  to  more  recent  times,  and  to  measures  of  a 
less  general  character,  I  have  endeavoured  to  prove  that  everything 
of  this  kind,  designed  for  western  improvement,  has  depended  on 
the  votes  of  New  England;  all  this  is  true  beyond  the  power  of  con- 
tradiction. 

And  now,  sir,  there  are  two  measures  to  which  I  will  refer,  not  so 
ancient  as  to  belong  to  the  early  history  of  the  public  lands,  and  not 
so  recent  as  to  be  on  this  side  of  the  period  when  the  gentleman 
charitably  imagines  a  new  direction  may  have  been  given  to  New 
England  feeling  and  New  England  votes. — These  measures,  and  the 
New  England  votes  in  support  of  them,  may  be  taken  as  samples 
and  specimens  of  all  the  rest. 

In  1820,  (observe,  Mr.  President,  in  1820,)  the  people  of  the 
West  besought  Congress  for  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  lands.  In 
favor  of  that  reduction,  New  England,  with  a  delegation  of  forty 
members  in  the  other  House,  gave  thirty-three  votes,  and  one  only 
against  it.— The  four  southern  states,  with  fifty  members,  gave 
thirty-two  votes  for  it,  and  seven  against  it.  Again,  in  1821,  (ob- 
serve, again,  sir,  the  time,)  the  law  passed  for  the  relief  of  the  pur- 
chasers of  the  public  lands.  This  was  a  measure  of  vital  importance 
to  the  West,  and  more  especially  to  the  Southwest.     It  authorized 


391 

the  relinquishment  of  contracts  for  lands,  which  had  been  entered 
into  at  high  prices,  and  a  reduction  in  other  cases  of  not  less  than 
37i  per  cent,  on  the  purchase  money.  Many  millions  of  dollars — 
six  or  seven  I  believe,  at  least,  probably  much  more — were  relinquish- 
ed by  this  law.  On  this  bill,  New  England,  with  her  forty  members, 
gave  more  affirmative  votes  than  the  four  southern  states,  with  their 
fifty-two  or  three  members. 

These  two  are  far  the  most  important  general  measures  respecting 
the  public  lands,  which  have  been  adopted  within  the  last  twenty 
years.  They  took  place  in  1820  and  1821.  That  is  the  time  when. 
As  to  the  manner  hotv,  the  gentleman  already  sees  that,  it  was  by 
voting,  in  solid  column,  for  the  required  relief:  and  lastly,  as  to  the 
cause  ivhyy  I  tell  the  gentleman,  it  was  because  the  members  from 
New  England  thought  the  measures  just  and  salutary;  because 
they  entertained  towards  the  West,  neither  envy,  hatred,  or  malice; 
because  they  deemed  it  becoming  them,  as  just  and  enlightened  pub- 
lic men,  to  meet  the  exigency  which  had  arisen  in  the  West,  with  the 
appropriate  measure  of  relief;  because  they  felt  it  due  to  their  own 
characters,  and  the  characters  of  their  New  England  predecessors 
in  this  government,  to  act  towards  the  new  states  in  the  spirit 
of  a  liberal,  patronizing,  magnanimous  policy.  So  much,  sir,  for 
the  cause  why;  and  I  hope  that  by  this  time,  sir,  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman is  satisfied;  if  not,  I  do  not  know  ivhen,  or  hoiv,  or  why,  he  ever 
will  be. 

Having  recurred  to  these  two  important  measures,  in  answer  to  the 
gentleman's  inquiries,  I  must  now  beg  permission  to  go  back  to  a  pe- 
riod yet  something  earlier,  for  the  purpose  of  still  further  showing 
how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  reason  there  is  for  the  gentleman's 
insinuation,  that  political  hopes  or  fears,  or  party  associations,  were 
the  grounds  of  these  New  England  votes.  And  after  what  has  been 
said,  I  hope  it  may  be  forgiven  me,  if  I  allude  to  some  political  opin- 
ions and  votes  of  my  own,  of  very  little  public  importance,  certainly, 
but  which,  from  the  time  at  which  they  were  given  and  expressed, 
may  pass  for  good  witnesses  on  this  occasion. 

This  government,  Mr.  President,  from  its  origin  to  the  peace  of 
1815,  had  been  too  much  engrossed  with  various  other  important 
concerns,  to  be  able  to  turn  its  thoughts  inward,  and  look  to  the 
developement  of  its  vast  internal  resources.  In  the  early  part  of 
President  Washington's  administration,  it  was  fully  occupied  with 
completing  its  own  organization,  providing  for  the  public  debt,  de- 
fending the  frontiers,  and  maintaining  domestic  peace.  Before  the 
termination  of  that  administration,  the  fires  of  the  French  Revolution 
blazed  forth,  as  from  a  new  opened  volcano,  and  the  whole  breadth 
of  the  ocean  did  not  secure  us  from  its  effects.  The  smoke  and  the 
cinders  reached  us,  though  not  the*burning  lava.  Difficult  and  agi- 
tating questions,  embarrassing  to  government,  and  dividing  public 
opinion,  sprung  out  of  the  new  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  and 
were  succeeded  by  others,  and  yet  again  by  others,  equally  embar- 
rassing, and  equally  exciting  division  and  discord,  through  the  long 
series  of  twenty  years;  till  they  finally  issued  in  the  war  with  Eng- 
land. Down  to  the  close  of  that  war,  no  distinct,  marked,  and 
deliberate  attention  had  been  given,  or  could  have  been  given,  to  the 


392 

internal  condition  of  the  country,  its  capacities  of  improvement,  01 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  government,  in  regard  to  objects 
connected  with  such  improvement. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought  about  an  entirely  new,  and  a 
most  interesting  state  of  things:  it  opened  to  us  other  prospects,  and 
suggested  other  duties.  We  ourselves  were  changed,  and  the  whole 
world  was  changed.  The  pacification  of  Europe,  after  June,  1815, 
assumed  a  firm  and  permanent  aspect.  The  nations  evidently  man- 
ifested that  they  were  disposed  for  peace.  Some  agitation  of  the 
waves  might  be  expected,  even  after  the  storm  had  subsided,  but  the 
tendency  was,  strongly  and  rapidly,  towards  settled  repose. 

It  so  happened,  sir,  that  I  was,  at  that  time,  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, and  like  others,  naturally  turned  my  attention  to  the  contem- 
plation of  the  newly  altered  condition  of  the  country,  and  of  the 
world.  It  appeared  plainly  enough  to  me,  as  well  as  to  wiser  and 
more  experienced  men,  that  the  policy  of  the  government  would  na- 
turally take  a  start  in  a  new  direction:  because,  new  directions  would 
necessarily  be  given  to  the  pursuits  and  occupations  of  the  people. 
We  had  pushed  our  commerce  far  and  fast,  under  the  advantage  of 
a  neutral  flag.  But  there  were  now  no  longer  flags,  either  neutral 
or  belligerent.  The  harvest  of  neutrality  had  been  great,  but  we 
had  gathered  it  all.  With  the  peace  of  Europe,  it  was  obvious  there 
would  spring  up  in  her  circle  of  nations,  a  revived  and  invigorated 
spirit  of  trade,  and  a  new  activity  in  all  the  business  and  objects  of 
civilized  life.  Hereafter,  our  commercial  gains  were  to  be  earned 
only  by  success,  in  a  close  and  intense  competition. — Other  nations 
would  produce  for  themselves,  and  carry  for  themselves,  and  manu- 
facture for  themselves,  to  the  full  extent  of  their  abilities.  The  crops 
of  our  plains  would  no  longer  sustain  European  armies,  nor  our  ships 
longer  supply  those  whom  war  had  rendered  unable  to  supply  them- 
selves. It  was  obvious,  that,  under  these  circumstances,  the  coun- 
try would  begin  to  survey  itself,  and  to  estimate  its  own  capacity  of 
improvement.  And  this  improvement — how  was  it  to  be  accomplish- 
ed, and  who  was  to  accomplish  it?  We  were  ten  or  twelve  millions 
of  people,  spread  over  almost  half  a  world.  We  were  more  than 
twenty  states,  some  stretching  along  the  same  sea-board,  some  along 
the  same  line  of  inland  frontier,  and  others  on  opposite  banks  of  the 
same  vast  rivers.  Two  considerations  at  once  presented  themselves, 
in  looking  at  this  state  of  things,  with  great  force.  One  was,  that  that 
great  branch  of  improvement,  which  consisted  in  furnishing  new  fa- 
cilities of  intercourse,  necessarily  ran  into  different  states,  in  every 
leading  instance,  and  would  benefit  the  citizens  of  all  such  states. 
No  one  state,  therefore,  in  such  cases,  would  assume  the  whole  ex- 
pense, nor  was  the  cooperation  of  several  states  to  be  expected. 
Take  the  instance  of  the  Delaware  breakwater.  It  will  cost  sev- 
eral millions  of  money.  Would  Pennsylvania  alone  ever  have  con- 
structed it?  Certainly,  never,  while  this  union  lasts,  because  it  is 
not  for  her  sole  benefit.  Would  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  Del- 
aware, have  united  to  accomplish  it,  at  their  joint  expense  ?  Certainly 
not,  for  the  same  reason.  It  could  not  be  done,  therefore,  but  by 
the  general  government.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  large 
inland  undertakings,  except  that,  in  them,  government,  instead  of 


393 

bearing  the  whole  expense,  cooperates  with  others  who  bear  a  part. 
The  other  consideration  is,  that  the  United  States  have  the  means. 
They  enjoy  the  revenues  derived  from  commerce,  and  the  states 
have  no  abundant  and  easy  sources  of  public  income.  The  custom- 
houses fill  the  general  treasury,  while  the  states  have  scanty  resour- 
ces, except  by  resort  to  heavy  direct  taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought  it  necessary  to  settle,  at  least 
for  myself,  some  definite  notions  with  respect  to  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment, in  regard  to  internal  affairs.  It  may  not  savor  too  much  of 
self  commendation  to  remark,  that,  with  this  object,  I  considered  the 
constitution,  its  judicial  construction,  its  cotemporaneous  exposition, 
and  the  whole  history  of  the  legislation  of  Congress  under  it;  and  I 
arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  government  had  power  to  accomplish 
sundry  objects,  or  aid  in  their  accomplishment,  which  are  now  com- 
monly spoken  of  as  Internal  Improvements.  That  conclusion, 
sir,  may  have  been  right,  or  it  may  have  been  wrong.  I  am  not 
about  to  argue  the  grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say  only,  that  it  was 
adopted  and  acted  on  even  so  early  as  in  1816.  Yes,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I  made  up  my  opinion,  and  determined  on  my  intended  course 
of  political  conduct,  on  these  subjects,  in  the  fourteenth  Congress, 
in  1816.  And  now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  further  to  say,  that  I 
made  up  these  opinions,  and  entered  on  this  course  of  political  con- 
duct, Teucro  duce.  Yes,  sir,  I  pursued,  in  all  this,  a  South  Carolina 
track,  on  the  doctrines  of  internal  improvement.  South  Carolina, 
as  she  was  then  represented  in  the  other  House,  set  forth,  in  1816, 
under  a  fresh  and  leading  breeze,  and  I  was  among  the  followers. 
But  if  my  leader  sees  new  lights,  and  turns  a  sharp  corner,  unless 
I  see  new  lights  also,  I  keep  straight  on  in  the  same  path.  I  repeat, 
that  leading  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina  were  first  and  foremost 
in  behalf  of  the  doctrines  of  internal  improvements,  when  those 
doctrines  came  first  to  be  considered  and  acted  upon  in  Congress. 
The  debate  on  the  bank  question,  on  the  tariff  of  1816,  and  on  the 
direct  tax,  will  show  who  was  who,  and  what  was  what,  at  that 
time.  The  tariff  of  1816,  one  of  the  plain  cases  of  oppression  and 
usurpation,  from  which,  if  the  government  does  not  recede,  individual 
states  may  justly  secede  from  the  government,  is,  sir,  in  truth,  a 
South  Carolina  tariff,  supported  by  South  Carolina  votes.  But  for 
those  votes,  it  could  not  have  passed  in  the  form  in  which  it  did  pass; 
whereas,  if  it  had  depended  on  Massachusetts  votes,  it  would  have 
been  lost. — Does  not  the  honorable  gentleman  well  know  all  this? 
There  are  certainly  those  who  do,  full  well,  know  it  all.  I  do  not 
say  this  to  reproach  South  Carolina.  I  only  state  the  fact;  and  I 
think  it  will  appear  to  be  true,  that  among  the  earliest  and  boldest 
advocates  of  the  tariff,  as  a  measure  of  protection,  and  on  the  ex- 
press ground  of  protection,  were  leading  gentlemen  of  South  Carolina 
in  Congress.  I  did  not  then,  and  cannot  now,  understand  their  lan- 
guage in  any  other  sense.  While  this  tariff  of  1816  was  under 
discussion,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  an  honorable  gentleman 
from  Georgia,  now  of  this  House,  (Mr.  Forsyth,)  moved  to  reduce 
the  proposed  duty  on  cotton.  He  failed,  by  four  votes,  South  Car- 
olina giving  three  votes,  (enough  to  have  turned  the  scale,)  against 
his  motion.  The  act,  sir,  then  passed,  and  received  on  its  passage 
50 


394 

the  support  of  a  majority  of  the  representatives  of  South  Carolina 
present  and  voting.  This  act  is  the  first,  in  the  order  of  those  now 
denounced  as  plain  usurpations.  We  see  it  daily,  in  the  list,  by  the 
side  of  those  of  1824  and  1828,  as  a  case  of  manifest  oppression, 
justifying  disunion.  I  put  it  home,  to  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina,  that  his  own  state  was  not  only  *  art  and  part '  in  this 
measure,  but  the  causa  causans.  Without  her  aid,  this  seminal  prin- 
ciple of  mischief,  this  root  of  Upas,  could  not  have  been  planted.  I 
have  already  said,  and  it  is  true,  that  this  act  proceeded  on  the 
ground  of  protection.  It  interfered,  directly,  with  existing  interests 
of  great  value  and  amount.  It  cut  up  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade  by 
the  roots,  but  it  passed,  nevertheless,  and  it  passed  on  the  principle 
of  protecting  manufactures,  on  the  principle  against  free  trade,  on 
the  principle  opposed  to  that  which  lets  us  alone.     (Note  2.) 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opinions  of  important  and  lead- 
ing gentlemen  from  South  Carolina,  on  the  subject  of  internal  im- 
provement in  1816.  I  went  out  of  Congress  the  next  year;  and 
returning  again  in  1823 — thought  I  found  South  Carolina  where  I 
had  left  her.  I  really  supposed  that  all  things  remained  as  they 
were,  and  that  the  South  Carolina  doctrine  of  internal  improvements 
would  be  defended  by  the  same  eloquent  voices,  and  the  same  strong 
arms,  as  formerly.  In  the  lapse  of  these  six  years,  it  is  true,  political 
associations  had  assumed  a  new  aspect,  and  new  divisions.  A  party 
had  arisen  in  the  South,  hostile  to  the  doctrine  of  internal  improve- 
ments, and  had  vigorously  attacked  that  doctrine.  Anti-consolidation 
was  the  flag  under  which  this  party  fought;  and  its  supporters  in- 
veighed against  internal  improvements,  much  after  the  manner  in 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  now  inveighed  against  them,  as 
part  and  parcel  of  the  system  of  consolidation.  Whether  this  party 
arose  in  South  Carolina  herself,  or  in  her  neighbourhood,  is  more 
than  I  know.  I  think  the  latter.  However  that  may  have  been, 
there  were  those  found  in  South  Carolina  ready  to  make  war  upon 
it,  and  who  did  make  intrepid  war  upon  it.  Names  being  regarded 
as  things,  in  such  controversies,  they  bestowed  on  the  anti-improve- 
ment gentlemen  the  appellation  of  radicals.  Yes,  sir,  the  appellation 
of  radicals,  as  a  term  of  distinction,  applicable  and  applied  to  those 
who  denied  the  liberal  doctrines  of  internal  improvements,  originated, 
according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  somewhere  between  North 
Carolina  and  Georgia.  Well,  sir,  these  mischievous  radicals  were 
to  be  put  down,  and  the  strong  arm  of  South  Carolina  was  stretched 
out  to  put  them  down.  About  this  time,  sir,  I  returned  to  Congress. 
The  battle  with  the  radicals  had  been  fought,  and  our  South  Caroli- 
na champions  of  the  doctrines  of  internal  improvement  had  nobly 
maintained  their  ground  and  were  understood  to  have  achieved  a 
victory.  We  looked  upon  them  as  conquerors.  They  had  driven 
back  the  enemy  with  discomfiture — a  thing,  by  the  way,  sir,  which  is 
not  always  performed  when  it  is  promised.  A  gentleman,  to  whom  I 
have  already  referred  in  this  debate,  had  come  into  Congress,  during 
my  absence  from  it,  from  South  Carolina,  and  had  brought  with  him 
a  high  reputation  for  ability.  He  came  from  a  school  with  which  we 
had  been  acquainted,  et  noscitur  a  sociis.  I  hold  in  my  hand,  sir,  a 
printed  speech   of  this   distinguished  gentleman,  (Mr.  McDuffie,) 


395 

"on  Internal  Improvements,"  delivered  about  the  period  to 
which  I  now  refer,  and  printed  with  a  few  introductory  remarks 
upon  consolidation;  in  which,  sir,  I  think  he  quite  consolidated  the 
arguments  of  his  opponents,  the  radicals,  if  to  crush  be  to  consoli- 
date. I  give  you  a  short  but  substantive  quotation  from  these  re- 
marks. He  is  speaking  of  a  pamphlet,  then  recently  published, 
entitled  "  Consolidation  ;"  and  having  alluded  to  the  question  of 
renewing  the  charter  of  the  former  Bank  of  the  United  States,  he 
says:  "Moreover,  in  the  early  history  of  parties,  and  when  Mr. 
Crawford  advocated  a  renewal  of  the  old  charter,  it  was  considered 
a  federal  measure;  which  internal  improvements  never  was,  as  this 
author  erroneously  states.  This  latter  measure  originated  in  the 
administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the  appropriation  for  the  Cum- 
berland road;  and  was  first  proposed,  as  a  system,  by  Mr.  Calhoun, 
and  carried  through  the  House  of  Representatives  by  a  large 
majority  of  the  republicans,  including  almost  every  one  of  the 
leading  men  who  carried  us  through  the  late  war." 

So,  then,  internal  improvement  is  not  one  of  the  federal  heresies. 
One  paragraph  more,  sir: 

"  The  author  in  question,  not  content  with  denouncing  as  federal- 
ists, General  Jackson,  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  the  majority 
of  the  South  Carolina  delegation  in  Congress,  modestly  extends  the 
denunciation  to  Mr.  Monroe,  and  the  whole  republican  party.  Here 
are  his  words: — 'During  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe  much 
has  passed  which  the  republican  party  would  be  glad  to  approve  if 
they  could!!  But  the  principal  feature,  and  that  which  has  chiefly 
elicited  these  observations,  is  the  renewal  of  the  System  of  Inter- 
nal Improvements. ,  Now  this  measure  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
115  to  86,  of  a  republican  Congress,  and  sanctioned  by  a  republican 
president.  Who,  then,  is  this  author — who  assumes  the  high  pre- 
rogative of  denouncing,  in  the  name  of  the  republican  party,  the 
republican  administration  of  the  country  ?  A  denunciation  including 
within  its  sweep  Calhoun,  Lowndes,  and  Cheves — men  who  will  be  re- 
garded as  the  brightest  ornaments  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  strong- 
est pillars  of  the  republican  party,  as  long  as  the  late  war  shall  be 
remembered,  and  talents  and  patriotism  shall  be  regarded  as  the 
proper  objects  of  the  admiration  and  gratitude  of  a  free  people!!" 

Such  are  the  opinions,  sir,  which  were  maintained  by  South  Caro- 
lina gentlemen,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  subject  of 
internal  improvements,  when  I  took  my  seat  there  as  a  member  from 
Massachusetts,  in  1823.  But  this  is  not  all.  We  had  a  bill  before 
us,  and  passed  it  in  that  House,  entitled  "  An  act  to  procure  the 
necessary  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates  upon  the  subject  of  roads 
and  canals."  It  authorized  the  President  to  cause  surveys  and  estimates 
to  be  made  of  the  routes  of  such  roads  and  Canals  as  he  might  deem  of 
national  importance,  in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of  view,  or  for 
the  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  appropriated  thirty  thousand  dollars, 
out  of  the  treasury,  to  defray  the  expense.  This  act,  though  pre- 
liminary in  its  nature,  covered  the  whole  ground.  It  took  for  grant- 
ed the  complete  power  of  internal  improvement,  as  far  as  any  of  its 
advocates  had  ever  contended  for  it.  Having  passed  the  other 
House,  the  bill  came  up  to  the  Senate,  and  was  here  considered  and 


396 

debated  in  April,  1824.  The  honorable  member  from  South  Caro- 
lina was  a  member  of  the  Senate  at  that  time.  While  the  bill  was 
under  consideration  here,  a  motion  was  made  to  add  the  following 
proviso: 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to 
affirm  or  admit  a  power  in  Congress,  on  their  own  authority,  to  make 
roads  or  canals,  within  any  of  the  states  of  the  union."  The  yeas 
and  nays  were  taken  on  this  proviso,  and  the  honorable  member 
voted  in  the  negative! — The  proviso  failed. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  add  this  proviso,  viz : 

"  Provided,  That  the  faith  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  pledged, 
that  no  money  shall  ever  be  expended  for  roads  or  canals,  except 
it  shall  be  among  the  several  states,  and  in  the  same  proportion  as 
direct  taxes  are  laid  and  assessed  by  the  provisions  of  the  constitu- 
tion." 

The  honorable  member  voted  against  this  proviso,  also,  and  it 
failed.  The  bill  was  then  put  on  its  passage,  and  the  honorable 
member  voted  for  it,  and  it  passed,  and  became  a  law. 

JNow,  it  strikes  me,  sir,  that  there  is  no  maintaining  these  votes, 
but  upon  the  power  of  internal  improvement,  in  its  broadest  sense. 
In  truth,  these  bills  for  surveys  and  estimates  have  always  been 
considered  as  test  questions — they  show  who  is  for  and  who  against 
internal  improvement.  This  law  itself  went  the  whole  length,  and 
assumed  the  full  and  complete  power.  The  gentleman's  votes  sus- 
tained that  power,  in  every  form  in  which  the  various  propositions  to 
amend  presented  it.  He  went  for  the  entire  and  unrestrained 
authority,  without  consulting  the  states,  and  without  agreeing  to  any 
proportionate  distribution.  And  now  suffer  me  to  remind  you,  Mr. 
President,  that  it  is  this  very  same  power,  thus  sanctioned,  in  every 
form,  by  the  gentleman's  own  opinion,  that  is  so  plain  and  manifest 
a  usurpation,  that  the  state  of  South  Carolina  is  supposed  to  be  justi- 
fied in  refusing  submission  to  any  laws  carrying  the  power  into  effect. 
Truly,  sir,  is  not  this  a  little  too  hard  ?  May  we  not  crave  some  mer- 
cy, under  favor  and  protection  of  the  gentleman's  own  authority? 
Admitting  that  a  road,  or  a  canal,  must  be  written  down  flat  usur- 
pation as  was  ever  committed,  may  we  find  no  mitigation  in  our 
respect  for  his  place,  and  his  vote,  as  one  that  knows  the  law? 

The  tariff,  which  South  Carolina  had  an  efficient  hand  in  establish- 
ing, in  1816,  and  this  asserted  power  of  internal  improvement,  ad- 
vanced by  her  in  the  same  year,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  approved  and 
sanctioned  by  her  representatives  in  1824,  these  two  measures  are 
the  great  grounds  on  which  she  is  now  thought  to  be  justified  in  break- 
ing up  the  union,  if  she  sees  fit  to  break  it  up! 

I  may  now  safely  say,  I  think,  that  we  have  had  the  authority  of 
leading  and  distinguished  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina,  in  support 
of  the  doctrine  of  internal  improvement.  I  repeat,  that,  up  to  1824, 
I  for  one,  followed  South  Carolina;  but,  when  that  star,  in  its  as- 
cension, veered  off,  in  an  unexpected  direction,  I  relied  on  its  light 
no  longer. — [Here  the  Vice  President  said:  Does  the  chair  under- 
stand the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  say  that  the  person  now 
occupying  the  chair  of  the  Senate  has  changed  his  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  internal  improvements?]     From  nothing  ever  said  to  me, 


397 

sir,  have  I  had  reason  to  know  of  any  change  in  the  opinions  of  the 
person  filling  the  chair  of  the  Senate.  If  such  change  has  taken 
place,  I  regret  it.  I  speak  generally  of  the  state  of  South  Caroli- 
na. Individuals,  we  know  there  are,  who  hold  opinions  favorable 
to  the  power.  An  application  for  its  exercise,  in  behalf  of  a  pub- 
lic work  in  South  Carolina  itself,  is  now  pending,  I  believe,  in  the 
other  House,  presented  by  members  from  that  state. 

I  have  thus,  sir,  perhaps,  not  without  some  tediousness  of  detail, 
shown  that  if  I  am  in  error,  on  the  subject  of  internal  improvement, 
how,  and  in  what  company,  I  fell  into  that  error.  If  I  am  wrong,  it 
is  apparent  who  misled  me. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honorable  member:  and  I  have  to  com- 
plain, of  an  entire  misapprehension  of  what  I  said  on  the  subject 
of  the  national  debt,  though  I  can  hardly  perceive  how  any  one  could 
misunderstand  me.  What  I  said  was,  not  that  I  wished  to  put  off 
the  payment  of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  I  had  always  voted 
for  every  measure  for  its  reduction,  as  uniformly  as  the  gentleman 
himself.  He  seems  to  claim  the  exclusive  merit  of  a  disposition  to 
reduce  the  public  charge.  I  do  not  allow  it  to  him.  As  a  debt,  I  was, 
I  am  for  paying  it,  because  it  is  a  charge  on  our  finances,  and  on  the 
industry  of  the  country.  But  I  observed,  that  I  thought  I  perceived 
a  morbid  fervor  on  that  subject — an  excessive  anxiety  to  pay  off  the 
debt,  not  so  much  because  it  is  a  debt  simply,  as  because,  while  it 
lasts,  it  furnishes  one  objection  to  disunion.  It  is  a  tie  of  common 
interest,  while  it  continues.  I  did  not  impute  such  motives  to  the 
honorable  member  himself,  but  that  there  is  such  a  feeling  in  exist- 
ence, I  have  not  a  particle  of  doubt.  The  most  I  said  was,  that  if 
one  effect  of  the  debt  was  to  strengthen  our  union,  that  effect  itself 
was  not  regretted  by  me,  however  much  others  might  regret  it.  The 
gentleman  has  not  seen  how  to  reply  to  this,  otherwise  than  by  sup- 
posing me  to  have  advanced  the  doctrine  that  a  national  debt  is  a 
national  blessing.  Others,  I  must  hope,  will  find  much  less  difficulty 
in  understanding  me.  I  distinctly  and  pointedly  cautioned  the  hon- 
orable member  not  to  understand  me  as  expressing  an  opinion  favor- 
able to  the  continuance  of  the  debt.  I  repeated  this  caution,  and 
repeated  it  more  than  once;  but  it  was  thrown  away. 

On  yet  another  point,  I  was  still  more  unaccountably  misunder- 
stood. The  gentleman  had  harangued  against  "consolidation."  I 
told  him,  in  reply,  that  there  was  one  kind  of  consolidation  to  which 
I  was  attached,  and  that  was,  the  consolidation  of  our  union;  and 
that  this  was  precisely  that  consolidation  to  which  I  feared  others 
were  not  attached.  That  such  consolidation  was  the  very  end  of  the 
constitution — the  leading  object,  as  they  had  informed  us  themselves, 
which  its  framers  had  kept  in  view.  I  turned  to  their  communica- 
tion, and  read  their  very  words — "  the  consolidation  of  the  union" — 
and  expressed  my  devotion  to  this  sort  of  consolidation.  I  said  in 
terms,  that  I  wished  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  to  augment  the 
powers  of  this  government;  that  my  object  was  to  preserve,  not  to 
enlarge;  and  that  by  consolidating  the  union,  I  understood  no  more 
than  the  strengthening  of  the  union,  and  perpetuating  it. — Having 
been  thus  explicit;  having  thus  read  from  the  printed  book,  the  pre- 
cise words  which  I  adopted,  as  expressing  my  own  sentiments,  il 

KK 


398 

passes  comprehension,  how  any  man  could  understand  me  as  con- 
tending for  an  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  government,  or  for 
consolidation,  in  that  odious  sense,  in  which  it  means  an  accumula- 
tion, in  the  federal  government,  of  the  powers  properly  belonging  to 
the  states. 

I  repeat,  sir,  that  in  adopting  the  sentiment  of  the  framers  of  the 
constitution,  I  read  their  language  audibly,  and  word  for  word;  and 
I  pointed  out  the  distinction,  just  as  fully  as  I  have  now  done,  be- 
tween the  consolidation  of  the  union  and  that  other  obnoxious  con- 
solidation which  I  disclaimed.  And  yet  the  honorable  member  mis- 
understood me. — The  gentleman  had  said  that  he  wished  for  no  fix- 
ed revenue — not  a  shilling.  If,  by  a  word,  he  could  convert  the  capi- 
tol  into  gold,  he  would  not  do  it.  Why  all  this  fear  of  revenue? 
Why,  sir,  because,  as  the  gentleman  told  us,  it  tends  to  consolidation. 
Now,  this  can  mean  neither  more  nor  less  than  that  a  common  rev- 
enue is  a  common  interest,  and  that  all  common  interests  tend  to 
hold  the  union  of  the  states  together.  I  confess  I  like  that  tenden- 
cy; if  the  gentleman  dislikes  it,  he  is  right  in  deprecating  a  shil- 
ling's fixed  revenue.     So  much,  sir,  for  consolidation. 

As  well  as  I  recollect  the  course  of  his  remarks,  the  honorable 
gentleman  next  recurred  to  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  He  did  not 
doubt  the  word  must  be  of  unpleasant  sound  to  me,  and  proceeded, 
with  an  effort,  neither  new,  nor  attended  with  new  success,  to  involve 
me  and  my  votes  in  inconsistency  and  contradiction.  I  am  happy  the 
honorable  gentleman  has  furnished  me  an  opportunity  of  a  timely 
remark  or  two  on  that  subject.  I  was  glad  he  approached  it,  for  it  is 
a  question  I  enter  upon  without  fear  from  any  body.  The  strenuous 
toil  of  the  gentleman  has  been  to  raise  an  inconsistency,  between  my 
dissent  to  the  tariff  in  1824,  and  my  vote  in  1828.  It  is  labor  lost. 
He  pays  undeserved  compliment  to  my  speech  in  1824;  but  this  is  to 
raise  me  high,  that  my  fall,  as  he  would  have  it,  in  1828,  may  be  more 
signal.  Sir,  there  was  no  fall  at  all.  Between  the  ground  I  stood 
on  in  1824,  and  that  I  took  in  1828,  there  was  not  only  no  precipice, 
but  no  declivity.  It  was  a  change  of  position,  to  meet  new  circum- 
stances, but  on  the  same  level.  A  plain  tale  explains  the  whole  mat- 
ter. In  1816,  I  had  not  acquiesced  in  the  tariff,  then  supported  by 
South  Carolina.  To  some  parts  of  it,  especially,  I  felt  and  expres- 
sed great  repugnance.  I  held  the  same  opinions  in  1821,  at  the 
meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  to  which  the  gentleman  has  alluded.  I 
said  then,  and  say  now,  that,  as  an  original  question,  the  authority  of 
Congress  to  exercise  the  revenue  power,  with  direct  reference  to 
the  protection  of  manufactures,  is  a  questionable  authority,  far  more 
questionable,  in  my  judgment,  than  the  power  of  internal  improve- 
ments. I  must  confess,  sir,  that,  in  one  respect,  some  impression 
has  been  made  on  my  opinions  lately.  Mr.  Madison's  publication 
has  put  the  power  in  a  very  strong  light.  He  has  placed  it,  I  must 
acknowledge,  upon  grounds  of  construction  and  argument,  which 
seem  impregnable.  But  even  if  the  power  were  doubtful,  on  the 
face  of  the  constitution  itself,  it  had  been  assumed  and  asserted  in 
the  first  revenue  law  ever  passed  under  that  same  constitution;  and, 
on  this  ground,  as  a  matter  settled  by  cotemporaneous  practice,  I 
had  refrained  from  expressing  the  opinion  that  the  tariff  laws  tran- 


399 

scended  constitutional  limits,  as  the  gentleman  supposes.  What  1 
did  say  at  Faneuil  Hall,  as  far  as  I  now  remember,  was,  that  this 
was  originally  matter  of  doubtful  construction.  The  gentleman  him- 
self, I  suppose,  thinks  there  is  no  doubt  about  it,  and  that  the  laws 
are  plainly  against  the  constitution.  Mr.  Madison's  letters,  already 
referred  to,  contain,  in  my  judgment,  by  far  the  most  able  exposition 
extant  of  this  part  of  the  constitution.  He  has  satisfied  me,  so  far 
as  the  practice  of  the  government  hac!  left  it  an  open  question. 

With  a  great  majority  of  the  Representatives  of  Massachusetts,  I 
voted  against  the  tariff  of  1824.  My  reasons  were  then  given,  and 
I  will  not  now  repeat  them.  But,  notwithstanding  our  dissent,  the 
great  states  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Kentucky,  went 
ibr  the  bill,  in  almost  unbroken  column,  and  it  passed.  Congress 
and  the  President  sanctioned  it,  and  it  became  the  law  of  the  land. 
What,  then,  were  we  to  do?  Our  only  option  was,  either  to  fall  in 
with  this  settled  course  of  public  policy,  and  accommodate  ourselves 
to  it  as  well  as  we  could,  or  to  embrace  the  South  Carolina  doctrine, 
and  talk  of  nullifying  the  statute  by  state  interference. 

This  last  alternative  did  not  suit  our  principles,  and,  of  course,  we 
adopted  the  former.  In  1827,  the  subject  came  again  before  Con- 
gress, on  a  proposition  favorable  to  wool  and  woollens.  We  looked 
upon  the  system  of  protection  as  being  fixed  and  settled.  The  law 
of  1824  remained.  It  had  gone  into  full  operation,  and,  in  regard 
to  some  objects  intended  by  it,  perhaps  most  of  them,  had  produced 
all  its  expected  effects.  IVo  man  proposed  to  repeal  it;  no  man  at- 
tempted to  renew  the  general  contest  on  its  principle.  But,  owing 
to  subsequent  and  unforeseen  occurrences,  the  benefit  intended  by  it 
to  wool  and  woollen  fabrics  had  not  been  realized.  Events,  not 
known  here  when  the  law  passed,  had  taken  place,  which  defeated 
its  object  in  that  particular  respect.  A  measure  was  accordingly 
brought  forward  to  meet  this  precise  deficiency;  to  remedy  this  par- 
ticular defect.  It  was  limited  to  wool  and  woollens.  Was  ever  any- 
thing more  reasonable?  If  the  policy  of  the  tariff  laws  had  become 
established  in  principle,  as  the  permanent  policy  of  the  government, 
should  they  not  be  revised  and  amended,  and  made  equal,  like  other 
laws,  as  exigencies  should  arise,  or  justice  require?  Because  we 
had  doubted  about  adopting  the  system,  were  we  to  refuse  to  cure  its 
manifest  defects,  after  it  become  adopted,  and  when  no  one  attempt- 
ed its  repeal?  And  this,  sir,  is  the  inconsistency  so  much  bruited. 
I  had  voted  against  the  tariff  of  1824 — but  it  passed;  and  in  1827 
and  1828,  I  voted  to  amend  it,  in  a  point  essential  to  the  interest  of 
my  constituents.  Where  is  the  inconsistency  ?  Could  I  do  other- 
wise? Sir,  does  political  consistency  consist  in  always  giving  nega- 
tive votes?  Does  it  require  of  a  public  man  to  refuse  to  concur  in 
amending  laws,  because  they  passed  against  his  consent?  Having 
voted  against  the  tariff  originally;  does  consistency  demand  that  I 
should  do  all  in  my  power  to  maintain  an  unequal  tariff,  burdensome 
to  my  own  constituents,  in  many  respects,  favorable  in  none?  To 
consistency  of  that  sort,  I  lay  no  claim. — And  there  is  another  sort  to 
which  I  lay  as  little — and  that  is,  a  kind  of  consistency  by  which 
persons  feel  themselves  as  much  bound  to  oppose  a  proposition  after 
it  has  become  a  law  of  the  land,  as  before. 


400 

The  bill  of  1827,  limited,  as  I  have  said,  to  the  single  object  in 
which  the  tariff  of  1824  had  manifestly  failed  in  its  effect,  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives,  but  was  lost  here.  We  had  then  the  act 
of  1828.  I  need  not  recur  to  the  history  of  a  measure  so  recent. 
Its  enemies  spiced  it  with  whatsoever  they  thought  would  render  it 
distasteful;  its  friends  took  it,  drugged  as  it  was.  Vast  amounts  of 
property,  many  millions,  had  been  invested  in  manufactures,  under 
the  inducements  of  the  act  of  1824.  Events  called  loudly,  as  I 
thought,  for  further  regulation  to  secure  the  degree  of  protection 
intended  by  that  act.  I  was  disposed  to  vote  for  such  regulation, 
and  desired  nothing  more;  but  certainly  was  not  to  be  bantered  out 
of  my  purpose  by  a  threatened  augmentation  of  duty  on  molasses,  put 
into  the  bill  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  making  it  obnoxious.  The 
vote  may  have  been  right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise;  but  it  is  little 
less  than  absurd  to  allege  against  it  an  inconsistency  with  opposition 
to  the  former  law. 

Sir,  as  to  the  general  subject  of  the  tariff,  I  have  little  now  to 
say.  Another  opportunity  may  be  presented.  I  remarked  the  other 
day,  that  this  policy  did  not  begin  with  us  in  New  England;  and  yet, 
sir,  New  England  is  charged,  with  vehemence,  as  being  favorable, 
or  charged  with  equal  vehemence,  as  being  unfavorable  to  the  tariff  . 
policy,  just  as  best  suits  the  time,  place,  and  occasion  for  making  some 
charge  against  her.  The  credulity  of  the  public  has  been  put  to  its 
extreme  capacity  of  false  impression,  relative  to  her  conduct,  in  this 
particular.  Through  all  the  South,  during  the  late  contest,  it  was 
New  England  policy,  and  a  New  England  administration,  that  was 
afflicting"  the  country  with  a  tariff  beyond  all  endurance;  while  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Alleghany,  even  the  act  of  1828  itself,  the  very 
sublimated  essence  of  oppression,  according  to  southern  opinions, 
was  pronounced  to  be  one  of  those  blessings,  for  which  the  West 
was  indebted  to  the  "  generous  South." 

With  large  investments  in  manufacturing  establishments,  and 
many  and  various  interests  connected  with  and  dependent  on  them, 
it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  New  England,  any  more  than  other  por- 
tions of  the  country,  will  now  consent  to  any  measure,  destructive 
or  highly  dangerous.  The  duty  of  the  government,  at  the  present 
moment,  would  seem  to  be  to  preserve,  not  to  destroy;  to  maintain 
the  position  which  it  has  assumed;  and,  for  one,  I  shall  feel  it  an 
indispensable  obligation  to  hold  it  steady,  as  far  as  in  my  power,  to 
that  degree  of  protection  which  it  has  undertaken  to  bestow. — No 
more  of  the  tariff. 

Professing  to  be  provoked,  by  what  he  chose  to  consider  a  charge 
made  by  me  against  South  Carolina,  the  honorable  member,  Mr. 
President,  has  taken  up  a  new  crusade  against  New  England. 
Leaving  altogether  the  subject  of  the  public  lands,  in  which  his  suc- 
cess, perhaps,  had  been  neither  distinguished  or  satisfactory,  and 
letting  go,  also,  of  the  topic  of  the  tariff,  he  sallied  forth,  in  a  gen- 
eral assault,  on  the  opinions,  politics,  and  parties  of  New  England, 
as  they  have  been  exhibited  in  the  last  thirty  years.  This  is  natural. 
The  "  narrow  policy  "  of  the  public  lands  had  proved  a  legal  settle- 
ment in  South  Carolina,  and  was  not  to  be  removed.  The  "  accursed 
policy,"  of  the  tariff,  also,  had  established  the  fact  of  its  birth  and 


401 

parentage,  in  the  same  state.  No  wonder,  therefore,  the  gentleman 
wished  to  carry  the  war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into  the  enemy's  coun- 
try. Prudently  willing  to  quit  these  subjects,  he  was,  doubtless, 
desirous  of  fastening  on  others,  that  which  could  not  be  transferred 
south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  The  politics  of  New  England 
became  his  theme;  and  it  was  in  this  part  of  his  speech,  I  think, 
that  he  menaced  me  with  such  sore  discomfiture.  Discomfiture! 
Why,  sir,  when  he  attacks  anything  which  I  maintain,  and  over- 
throws it;  when  he  turns  the  right  or  left  of  any  position  which  I 
take  up;  when  he  drives  me  from  any  ground  I  choose  to  occupy;  he 
may  then  talk  of  discomfiture,  but  not  till  that  distant  day.  What 
has  he  done?  Has  he  maintained  his  own  charges?  Has  he  proved 
what  he  alleged  ?  Has  he  sustained  himself  in  his  attack  on  the  gov- 
ernment, and  on  the  history  of  the  North,  in  the  matter  of  the  public 
lands?  Has  he  disproved  a  fact,  refuted  a  proposition,  weakened 
an  argument,  maintained  by  me?  Has  he  come  within  beat  of  drum 
of  any  position  of  mine?  Oh,  no;  but  he  has  "  carried  the  war  into 
the  enemy's  country!"  Carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country! 
Yes,  sir,  and  what  sort  of  a  war  has  he  made  of  it  ?  Why,  sir,  he 
has  stretched  a  drag-net  over  the  whole  surface  of  perished  pamph- 
lets, indiscreet  sermons,  frothy  paragraphs,  and  fuming  popular 
addresses;  over  whatever  the  pulpit,  in  its  moments  of  alarm,  the 
press  in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  extravagance,  have  severally 
thrown  off  in  times  of  general  excitement  and  violence.  He  has 
thus  swept  together  a  mass  of  such  things  as,  but  that  they  are  now 
old  and  cold,  the  public  health  would  have  required  him  rather  to 
leave  in  their  state  of  dispersion.  For  a  good  long  hour  or  two,  we 
had  the  unbroken  pleasure  of  listening  to  the  honorable  member, 
while  he  recited,  with  his  usual  grace  and  spirit,  and  with  evident 
high  gusto,  speeches,  pamphlets,  addresses  and  all  the  et  ceteras  of 
the  political  press, — such  as  warm  heads  produce  in  warm  times;  and 
such  as  it  would  be  "  discomfiture"  indeed,  for  any  one,  whose  taste 
did  not  delight  in  that  sort  of  reading,  to  be  obliged  to  peruse.  This 
is  his  war.  This  it  is  to  carry  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country. 
It  is  in  an  invasion  of  this  sort,  that  he  flatters  himself  with  the  expec- 
tation of  gaining  laurels  fit  to  adorn  a  senator's  brow! 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not,  it  will,  I  trust,  not  be  expected  that  I 
should,  either  now,  or  at  any  time,  separate  this  farrago  into  part3, 
and  answer  and  examine  its  components.  I  shall  hardly  bestow 
upon  it  all,  a  general  remark  or  two.  In  the  run  of  forty  years, 
sir,  under  this  constitution,  we  have  experienced  sundry  successive 
violent  party  contests. — Party  arose,  indeed,  with  the  constitution 
itself,  and,  in  some  form  or  other,  has  attended  it  through  the  greater 
part  of  its  history.  Whether  any  other  constitution  than  the  old 
articles  of  confederation,  was  desirable,  was,  itself,  a  question  on 
which  parties  formed;  if  a  new  constitution  were  framed,  what 
powers  should  be  given  to  it,  was  another  question;  and,  when  it 
had  been  formed,  what  was,  in  fact,  the  just  extent  of  the  powers 
actually  conferred,  was  a  third.  Parties,  as  we  know,  existed  under 
the  first  administration,  as  distinctly  marked  as  those  which  have  man- 
ifested themselves  at  any  subsequent  period.  The  contest  imme- 
diately preceding  the  political  change  in  1801,  and  that,  again,  which 
51  kk* 


402 

existed  at  the  commencement  of  the  late  war,  are  other  instances  of 
party  excitement,  of  something  more  than  usual  strength  and  intens- 
ity.    In  all  these  conflicts  there  was,  no  doubt,  much  of  violence  on 
both  and  all  sides.     It  would  be  impossible,  if  one  had  a  fancy  for 
such  employment,  to  adjust  the  relative  quantum  of  violence  between 
these  contending  parties.     There  was  enough  in  each,  as  must  al- 
ways be  expected  in  popular  governments.     With  a  great  deal  of 
proper  and  decorous  discussion,  there  was  mingled  a  great  deal,  also, 
of  declamation,  virulence,  crimination,  and  abuse.     In  regard  to 
any  party,  probably,  at  one  of  the  leading  epochs  in  the  history  of 
parties,  enough  may  be  found  to  make  out  another  equally  inflamed 
exhibition,  as  that  with  which  the  honorable  member  has  edified  us. 
For  myself,  sir,  I  shall  not  rake  among  the  rubbish  of  by-gone  times, 
to  see  what  I  can  find,  or  whether  I  cannot  find  something,  by  which 
I  can  fix  a  blot  on  the  escutcheon  of  any  state,  any  party,  or  any 
part  of  the   country.     General  Washington's  administration   was 
steadily  and  zealously  maintained,  as  we  all  know,  by  New  England. 
It  was  violently  opposed  elsewhere.     We  know  in  what  quarter  he 
had  the  most  earnest,  constant,  and  persevering  support,  in  all  his 
great  and  leading  measures.     We  know  where  his  private  and  per- 
sonal character  were  held  in  the  highest  degree  of  attachment  and 
veneration;  and  we  know,  too,  where  his  measures  were  opposed,  his 
services  slighted,  and  his  character  vilified.     We  know,  or  we  might 
know,  if  we  turned  to  the  Journals,   who  expressed  respect,  grati- 
tude, and  regret  when  he  retired  from  the  chief  magistracy;  and 
who  refused  to  express  either  respect,  gratitude,  or  regret.     I  shall 
not  open  those  Journals.     Publications  more  abusive  or  scurrilous 
never  saw  the  light,  than  were  sent  forth  against  Washington,  and 
all  his  leading  measures,  from  presses  south  of  New  England.     But 
I  shall  not  look  them  up.     I  employ  no  scavengers — no  one  is  in 
attendance  on  me,  tendering  such  means  of  retaliation;  and,  if  there 
were,  with  an  ass's  load  of  them,  with  a  bulk  as  huge  as  that  which 
the  gentleman  himself  has  produced,  I  would  not  touch  one  of  them. 
I  see  enough  of  the  violence  of  our  own  times,  to  be  no  way  anx- 
ious to  rescue  from  forgetfulness  the  extravagances  of  times  past. 
Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present  purpose  ?     It  has  nothing  to 
<lo  with  the  public  lands,  in  regard  to  which  the  attack  was  begun; 
and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  those  sentiments  and  opinions,  which, 
I  have  thought,  tend  to  disunion,   and  all  of  which  the  honorable 
member  seems  to  have  adopted  himself,  and  undertaken  to  defend. 
New  England  has,  at  times,  so  argues  the  gentleman,  held  opinions 
as  dangerous,  as  those  which  he  now  holds.     Suppose  this  were  so; 
why  should  he,  therefore,  abuse  New  England?     If  he  finds  himself 
countenanced  by  acts  of  hers,  how  is  it  that,  while  he  relies  on  these 
acts,  he  covers,  or  seeks  to  cover,  their  authors  with  reproach?   But, 
sir,  if,  in  the  course  of  forty  years,  there  have  been  undue  efferves- 
cences of  party  in  New  England,  has  the  same  thing  happened  no- 
where else?     Party  animosity  and  party  outrage,  not  in  New  Eng- 
land, but  elsewhere,  denounced  President  Washington,  not  only  as 
a  Federalist,  but  as  a  Tory,  a  British  agent,  a  man,  who,  in  his  high 
office,  sanctioned  corruption.     But  does  the  honorable  member  sup- 
pose, that,  if  I  had  a  tender  here,  who  should  put  such  an  effusion 


403 

of  wickedness  and  folly  in  my  hand,  that  I  would  stand  up  and  read 
it  against  the  South?  Parties  ran  into  great  heats  again,  in  1799, 
and  1800.  What  was  said,  sir,  or  rather  what  was  not  said,  in  those 
years,  against  John  Adams,  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  its  admitted  ablest  defender  on  the  floor  of  Con- 
gress? If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  increase  his  stores  of  party 
abuse  and  frothy  violence;  if  he  has  a  determined  proclivity  to  such 
pursuits,  there  are  treasures  of  that  sort  south  of  the  Potomac, 
much  to  his  taste,  yet  untouched — I  shall  not  touch  them. 

The  parties  which  divided  the  country  at  the  commencement  of 
the  late  war,  were  violent.  But,  then,  there  was  violence  on  both 
sides,  and  violence  in  every  state. — Minorities  and  majorities  were 
equally  violent.  There  was  no  more  violence  against  the  war  in 
New  England,  than  in  other  states;  nor  any  more  appearance  of 
violence,  except  that,  owing  to  a  dense  population,  greater  facility  of 
assembling,  and  more  presses,  there  may  have  been  more  in  quantity, 
spoken  and  printed  there,  than  in  some  other  places.  In  the  article 
of  sermons,  too,  New  England  is  somewhat  more  abundant  than 
South  Carolina;  and,  for  that  reason,  the  chance  of  finding  here 
and  there  an  exceptionable  one,  may  be  greater.  I  hope,  too,  there 
are  more  good  ones.  Opposition  may  have  been  more  formidable 
in  New  England,  as  it  embraced  a  larger  portion  of  the  whole  pop 
ulation;  but  it  was  no  more  unrestrained  in  its  principle,  or  violent 
in  manner.  The  minorities  dealt  quite  as  harshly  with  their  own 
state  governments,  as  the  majorities  dealt  with  the  administration 
here.  There  were  presses  on  both  sides,  popular  meetings  on  both 
sides,  ay,  and  pulpits  on  both  sides,  also.  The  gentleman's  pur- 
veyors have  only  catered  for  him  among  the  productions  of  one  side. 
I  certainly  shall  not  supply  the  deficiency  by  furnishing  samples  of 
the  other.     I  leave  to  him,  and  to  them,  the  whole  concern. 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  if,  in  any  part  of  this  their  grate- 
ful occupation;  if,  in  all  their  researches,  they  find  anything  in  the 
history  of  Massachusetts,  or  New  England,  or  in  the  proceedings  of 
any  legislative,  or  other  public  body,  disloyal  to  the  union,  speaking 
slightly  of  its  value,  proposing  to  break  it  up,  or  recommending  non- 
intercourse  with  neighbouring  states,  on  account  of  difference  of 
political  opinion,  then,  sir,  I  give  them  all  up  to  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman's unrestrained  rebuke;  expecting,  however,  that  he  will 
extend  his  buffetings,  in  like  manner  to  all  similar  proceedings,  ivher- 
ever  else  found. 

The  gentleman,  sir,  has  spoken  at  large,  of  former  parties,  now  no 
longer  in  being,  by  their  received  appellations,  and  has  undertaken 
to  instruct  us,  not  only  in  the  knowledge  of  their  principles,  but  of 
their  respective  pedigrees  also.  He  has  ascended  to  the  origin,  and 
run  out  their  genealogies.  With  most  exemplary  modesty,  he  speaks 
of  the  party  to  which  he  professes  to  have  belonged  himself,  as  the 
true  Pure,  the  only  honest,  patriotic  party,  derived  by  regular  descent, 
from  father  to  son,  from  the  time  of  the  virtuous  Romans!  Spread- 
ing before  us  the  family  tree  of  political  parties,  he  takes  especial 
care  to  show  himself,  snugly  perched  on  a  popular  bough!  He  is 
wakeful  to  the  expediency  of  adopting  such  rules  of  descent,  as  shall 
bring  him  in,  in  exclusion  of  others,  as  an  heir  to  the  inheritance  of 


404 

all  public  virtue,  and  all  true  political  principle.  His  party,  and  his 
opinions,  are  sure  to  be  orthodox;  heterodoxy  is  confined  to  his  op- 
ponents. He  spoke,  sir,  of  the  federalists,  and  I  thought  I  saw 
some  eyes  begin  to  open  and  stare  a  little,  when  he  ventured  on  that 
ground.  I  expected  he  would  draw  his  sketches  rather  lightly,  when 
he  looked  on  the  circle  round  him,  and,  especially,  if  he  should  cast 
his  thoughts  to  the  high  places,  out  of  the  Senate.  Nevertheless, 
he  went  back  to  Rome,  ad  annum  urbe  condita,  and  found  the  fathers 
of  the  federalists,  in  the  primeval  aristocrats  of  that  renowned  em- 
pire! He  traced  the  flow  of  federal  blood  down,  through  successive 
ages  and  centuries,  till  he  brought  it  into  the  veins  of  the  American 
tories,  (of  whom,  by  the  way,  there  were  twenty  in  the  Carolinas, 
for  one  in  Massachusetts.)  From  the  tories,  he  followed  it  to  the 
federalists;  and,  as  the  federal  party  was  broken  up,  and  there  was 
no  possibility  of  transmitting  it  further  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  he 
seems  to  have  discovered  that  it  has  gone  off,  collaterally,  though 
against  all  the  canons  of  descent,  into  the  Ultras  of  France,  and 
finally  become  extinguished,  like  exploded  gas,  among  the  adherents 
of  Don  Miguel!  This,  sir,  is  an  abstract  of  the  gentleman's  history 
of  federalism.  I  am  not  about  to  controvert  it. — It  is  not,  at  pres- 
ent, worth  the  pains  of  refutation;  because,  sir,  if  at  this  day,  any 
one  feels  the  sin  of  federalism  lying  heavily  on  his  conscience,  he 
can  easily  procure  remission.  He  may  even  obtain  an  indulgence, 
if  he  be  desirous  of  repeating  the  same  transgression.  It  is  an 
affair  of  no  difficulty  to  get  into  this  same  right  line  of  patriotic  de- 
scent. A  man,  now-a-days,  is  at  liberty  to  choose  his  political 
parentage.  He  may  elect  his  own  father.  Federalist,  or  not,  he 
may,  if  he  choose,  claim  to  belong  to  the  favored  stock,  and  his  claim 
will  be  allowed.  He  may  carry  back  his  pretensions  just  as  far  as 
the  honorable  gentleman  himself;  nay,  he  may  make  himself  out  the 
honorable  gentleman's  cousin,  and  prove,  satisfactorily,  that  he  is 
descended  from  the  same  political  great  grandfather.  All  this  is 
allowable. — We  all  know  a  process,  sir,  by  which  the  whole  Essex 
Jilnto  could,  in  one  hour,  be  all  washed  white  from  their  ancient  fed- 
eralism, and  come  out,  every  one  of  them,  an  original  democrat, 
dyed  in  the  wool !  Some  of  them  have  actually  undergone  the  ope- 
ration, and  they  say  it  is  quite  easy.  The  only  inconvenience  it 
occasions,  as  they  tell  us,  is  a  slight  tendency  of  the  blood  to  the 
face,  a  soft  suffusion,  which,  however,  is  very  transient,  since  noth- 
ing is  said  by  those  whom  they  join,  calculated  to  deepen  the  red  on 
the  cheek,  but  a  prudent  silence  observed,  in  regard  to  all  the  past. 
Indeed,  sir,  some  smiles  of  approbation  have  been  bestowed,  and 
some  crumbs  of  comfort  have  fallen,  not  a  thousand  miles  from  the 
door  of  the  Hartford  Convention  itself.  And  if  the  author  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787  possessed  the  other  requisite  qualifications,  there 
is  no  knowing,  notwithstanding  his  federalism,  to  what  heights  of 
favor  he  might  not  yet  attain. 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare,  such  as  it  was,  into  New 
England,  the  honorable  gentleman  all  along  professes  to  be  acting 
on  the  defensive.  He  elects  to  consider  me  as  having  assailed  South 
Carolina,  and  insists  that  he  comes  forth  only  as  her  champion,  and 
in  her  defence.     Sir,  I  do  not  admit  that  I  made  any  attack  whatev- 


405 

er  on  South  Carolina.  Nothing  like  it.  The  honorable  member, 
in  his  first  speech,  expressed  opinions,  in  regard  to  revenue  and 
some  other  topics,  which  I  heard  both  with  pain  and  with  surprise. 
I  told  the  gentleman  I  was  aware  that  such  sentiments  were  enter- 
tained out  of  the  government,  but  had  not  expected  to  find  them  ad- 
vanced in  it;  that  I  knew  there  were  persons  in  the  South  who  speak 
of  our  union  with  indifference,  or  doubt,  taking  pains  to  magnify  its 
evils,  and  to  say  nothing  of  its  benefits;  that  the  honorable  member 
himself,  I  was  sure,  could  never  be  one  of  these;  and  I  regretted  the 
expression  of  such  opinions  as  he  had  avowed,  because  I  thought 
their  obvious  tendency  was  to  encourage  feelings  of  disrespect  to  the 
union,  and  to  weaken  its  connexion.  This,  sir,  is  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  all  I  said  on  the  subject.  And  this  constitutes  the  attack, 
which  called  on  the  chivalry  of  the  gentleman,  in  his  own  opinion, 
to  harry  us  with  such  a  foray,  among  the  party  pamphlets  and  party 
proceedings  of  Massachusetts!  If  he  means  that  I  spoke  with  dis- 
satisfaction or  disrespect  of  the  ebullitions  of  individuals  in  South 
Carolina,  it  is  true.  But  if  he  means  that  I  had  assailed  the  char- 
acter of  the  state,  her  honor,  or  patriotism;  that  I  had  reflected  on 
her  history  or  her  conduct,  he  had  not  the  slightest  ground  for  any 
such  assumption.  I  did  not  even  refer,  I  think,  in  my  observations, 
to  any  collection  of  individuals.  I  said  nothing  of  the  recent  con- 
ventions. I  spoke  in  the  most  guarded  and  careful  manner,  and  on- 
ly expressed  my  regret  for  the  publication  of  opinions  which  I  pre- 
sumed the  honorable  member  disapproved  as  much  as  myself.  In 
this,  it  seems,  I  was  mistaken.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  gentleman 
has  disclaimed  any  sentiment,  or  any  opinion,  of  a  supposed  anti- 
union tendency,  which  on  all,  or  any  of  the  recent  occasions  has 
been  expressed. — The  whole  drift  of  his  speech  has  been  rather  to 
prove,  that,  in  divers  times  and  manners,  sentiments  equally  liable 
to  my  objection  have  been  promulged  in  New  England. — And  one 
would  suppose  that  his  object,  in  this  reference  to  Massachusetts, 
was  to  find  a  precedent  to  justify  proceedings  in  the  South,  were  it 
not  for  the  reproach  and  contumely  with  which  he  labors,  all  along, 
to  load  these,  his  own  chosen  precedents.  By  way  of  defending 
South  Carolina  from  what  he  chooses  to  think  an  attack  on  her,  he 
first  quotes  the  example  of  Massachusetts,  and  then  denounces  that 
example  in  good  set  terms.  This  two-fold  purpose,  not  very  con- 
sistent with  itself,  one  would  think,  was  exhibited  more  than  once  in 
the  course  of  his  speech.  He  referred,  for  instance,  to  the  Hart- 
ford Convention.  Did  he  do  this  for  authority,  or  for  a  topic  of 
reproach?  Apparently  for  both:  for  he  told  us  that  he  should  find 
no  fault  with  the  mere  fact  of  holding  such  a  convention,  and  con- 
sidering and  discussing  such  questions  as  he  supposes  were  then  and 
there  discussed;  but  what  rendered  it  obnoxious  was  the  time  it  was 
holden,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  country,  then  existing.  We 
were  in  a  war,  he  said,  and  the  country  needed  all  our  aid — the 
hand  of  government  required  to  be  strengthened,  not  weakened — 
and  patriotism  should  have  postponed  such  proceedings  to  another 
day.  The  thing  itself,  then,  is  a  precedent;  the  time  and  manner 
of  it,  only,  a  subject  of  censure.  Now,  sir,  I  go  much  further, 
on  this  point,  than  the  honorable  member.     Supposing,  as  the  gen- 


406 

tleman  seems  to,  that  the  Hartford  Convention  assembled  for  any 
such  purpose  as  breaking  up  the  union,  because  they  thought  un- 
constitutional laws  had  been  passed,  or  to  consult  on  that  subject, 
or  to  calculate  the  value  of  the  union;  supposing  this  to  be  their  purpose, 
or  any  part  of  it,  then,  I  say  the  meeting  itself  was  disloyal,  and  was 
obnoxious  to  censure,  whether  held  in  time  of  peace  or  time  of  war, 
or  under  whatever  circumstances.  The  material  question  is  the 
object.  Is  dissolution  the  object?  If  it  be,  external  circumstances 
may  make  it  a  more  or  less  aggravated  case,  but  cannot  affect  the 
principle.  I  do  not  hold,  therefore,  sir,  that  the  Hartford  Conven- 
tion was  pardonable,  even  to  the  extent  of  the  gentleman's  admission, 
if  its  objects  were  really  such  as  have  been  imputed  to  it.  Sir, 
there  never  was  a  time,  under  any  degree  of  excitement,  in  which  the 
Hartford  Convention,  or  any  other  convention,  could  maintain  itself 
one  moment  in  New  England,  if  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as 
the  gentleman  says  would  have  been  an  allowable  purpose.  To  hold 
conventions  to  decide  constitutional  law! — to  try  the  binding  validity 
of  statutes,  by  votes  in  a  convention!  Sir,  the  Hartford  Convention, 
I  presume,  would  not  desire  that  the  honorable  gentleman  should  be 
their  defender  or  advocate,  if  he  puts  their  case  upon  such  untenable 
and  extravagant  grounds. 

Then,  sir,  the  gentleman  has  no  fault  to  find  with  these  recently 
promulgated  South  Carolina  opinions.  And,  certainly,  he  need 
have  none;  for  his  own  sentiments  as  now  advanced,  and  advanced 
on  reflection,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  comprehend  them,  go 
the  full  length  of  all  these  opinions.  I  propose,  sir,  to  say  something 
on  these,  and  to  consider  how  far  they  are  just  and  constitutional. 
Before  doing  that,  however,  let  me  observe,  that  the  eulogium  pro- 
nounced on  the  character  of  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  by  the 
honorable  gentleman,  for  her  revolutionary  and  other  merits,  meets 
my  hearty  concurrence.  I  shall  not  acknowledge  that  the  honora- 
ble member  goes  before  me  in  regard  for  whatever  of  distinguished 
talent,  or  distinguished  character,  South  Carolina  has  produced.  I 
claim  part  of  the  honor,  I  partake  in  the  pride,  of  her  great  names. 
I  claim  them  for  countrymen,  one  and  all.  The  Laurenses,  the  Rut- 
ledges,  the  Pinckneys,the  Sumpters,  the  Marions — Americans,  all — 
whose  fame  is  no  more  to  be  hemmed  in  by  state  lines,  than  their  tal- 
ents and  patriotism  were  capable  of  being  circumscribed  within  the 
same  narrow  limits.  In  their  day  and  generation,  they  served  and 
honored  the  country,  and  the  whole  country;  and  their  renown  is  of  the 
treasures  of  the  whole  country.  Him,  whose  honored  name  the  gentle- 
man himself  bears — does  he  esteem  me  less  capable  of  gratitude  for 
his  patriotism,  or  sympathy  for  his  sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes  had  first 
opened  upon  the  light  of  Massachusetts,  instead  of  South  Carolina? 
Sir,  does  he  suppose  it  in  his  power  to  exhibit  a  Carolina  name,  so 
bright,  as  to  produce  envy  in  my  bosom  ?  No,  sir,  increased  grati- 
fication and  delight,  rather.  I  thank  God,  that,  if  I  am  gifted  with 
little  of  the  spirit  which  is  able  to  raise  mortals  to  the  skies,  I  have 
yet  none,  as  I  trust,  of  that  other  spirit,  which  would  drag  angels 
down.  When  I  shall  be  found,  sir,  in  my  place  here,  in  the  Senate, 
or  elsewhere,  to  sneer  at  public  merit,  because  it  happens  to  spring 
up  beyond  the  little  limits  of  my  own  state,  or  neighbourhood;  when 


407 

I  refuse,  for  any  such  cause,  or  for  any  cause,  the  homage  due  to 
American  talent,  to  elevated  patriotism,  to  sincere  devotion  to  liber- 
ty and  the  country;  or,  if  I  see  an  uncommon  endowment  of  Heav- 
en— if  I  see  extraordinary  capacity  and  virtue  in  any  son  of  the 
South — and  if,  moved  by  local  prejudice,  or  gangrened  by  state 
jealousy,  I  get  up  here  to  abate  the  tithe  of  a  hair  from  his  just 
character  and  just  fame,  may  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my 
mouth! 

Sir,  let  me  recur  to  pleasing  recollections — let  me  indulge  in  re- 
freshing remembrance  of  the  past — let  me  remind  you  that  in  early 
times,  no  states  cherished  greater  harmony,  both  of  principle  and 
feeling,  than  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina.  Would  to  God  that 
harmony  might  again  return!  Shoulder  to  shoulder  they  went 
through  the  revolution — hand  in  hand  they  stood  round  the  admin- 
istration of  Washington,  and  felt  his  own  great  arm  lean  on  them 
for  support.  Unkind  feeling,  if  it  exist,  alienation  and  distrust,  are 
the  growth,  unnatural  to  such  soils,  of  false  principles  since  sown. 
They  are  weeds,  the  seeds  of  which  that  same  great  arm  never  scat- 
tered. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomium  upon  Massachusetts — 
she  needs  none.  There  she  is — behold  her,  and  judge  for  your- 
selves. There  is  her  history:  the  world  knows  it  by  heart.  The 
past,  at  least,  is  secure.  There  is  Boston,  and  Concord,  and  Lex- 
ington, and  Bunker  Hill — and  there  they  will  remain  forever.  The 
bones  of  her  sons,  falling  in  the  great  struggle  for  Independence, 
now  lie  mingled  with  the  soil  of  every  state,  from  New  England  to 
Georgia;  and  there  they  will  lie  forever.  And  sir,  where  American 
Liberty  raised  its  first  voice;  and  where  its  youth  was  nurtured  and 
sustained,  there  it  still  lives,  in  the  strength  of  its  manhood  and  full 
of  its  original  spirit.  If  discord  and  disunion  shall  wound  it — if 
party  strife  and  blind  ambition  shall  hawk  at  and  tear  it — if  folly  and 
madness — if  uneasiness,  under  salutary  and  necessary  restraint — 
shall  succeed  to  separate  it  from  that  union,  by  which  alone  its  ex- 
istence is  made  sure,  it  will  stand,  in  the  end,  by  the  side  of  that 
cradle  in  which  its  infancy  was  rocked:  it  will  stretch  forth  its  arm 
with  whatever  of  vigor  it  may  still  retain,  over  the  friends  who 
gather  round  it;  and  it  will  fall  at  last,  if  fall  it  must,  amidst  the  proud- 
est monuments  of  its  own  glory,  and  on  the  very  spot  of  its  origin. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  performed,  Mr.  President,  by  far  the 
most  grave  and  important  duty,  which  I  feel  to  be  devolved  on  me, 
by  this  occasion.  It  is  to  state,  and  to  defend,  what  I  conceive  to  be 
the  true  principles  of  the  constitution  under  which  we  are  here  as- 
sembled. I  might  well  have  desired  that  so  weighty  a  task  should 
have  fallen  into  other  and  abler  hands.  I  could  have  wished  that  it 
should  have  been  executed  by  those,  whose  character  and  experi- 
ence give  weight  and  influence  to  their  opinions,  such  as  cannot 
possibly  belong  to  mine.  But,  sir,  I  have  met  the  occasion,  not 
sought  it:  and  I  shall  proceed  to  state  my  own  sentiments,  without 
challenging  for  them  any  particular  regard,  with  studied  plainness, 
and  as  much  precision  as  possible. 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  to 
maintain,  that  it  is  a  right  of  the  state  legislatures  to  interfere,  when- 


408 

ever,  in  their  judgment,  this  government  transcends  its  constitution 
al  limits,  and  to  arrest  the  operation  of  its  laws. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right;  as  a  right  existing  under 
the  constitution,  not  as  a  right  to  overthrow  it,  on  the  ground  of  ex- 
treme necessity,  such  as  would  justify  violent  revolution. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the  part  of  the  states, 
thus  to  interfere,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  exercise  of  pow- 
er by  the  general  government,  of  checking  it,  and  of  compelling  it  to 
conform  to  their  opinion  of  the  extent  of  its  powers. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain,  that  the  ultimate  power  of  judging 
of  the  constitutional  extent  of  its  own  authority,  is  not  lodged  ex- 
clusively in  the  general  government,  or  any  branch  of  it;  but  that, 
on  the  contrary,  the  states  may  lawfully  decide  for  themselves,  and 
each  state  for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of  the  general 
government  transcends  its  power. 

I  understand  him  to  insist,  that  if  the  exigency  of  the  case,  in  the 
opinion  of  any  state  government  require  it,  such  state  government 
may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul  an  act  of  the  general 
government,  which  it  deems  plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional. 

This  is  the  sum  of  what  I  understand  from  him,  to  be  the  South 
Carolina  doctrine;  and  the  doctrine  which  he  maintains.  I  propose 
to  consider  it,  and  compare  it  with  the  constitution.  Allow  me  to  say, 
as  a  preliminary  remark,  that  I  call  this  the  South  Carolina  doctrine, 
only  because  the  gentleman  himself  has  so  denominated  it.  I  do 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  say  that  South  Carolina,  as  a  state,  has  ever 
advanced  these  sentiments.  I  hope  she  has  not,  and  never  may. 
That  a  great  majority  of  her  people  are  opposed  to  the  tariff  laws,  is 
doubtless  true.  That  a  majority,  somewhat  less  than  that  just 
mentioned,  conscientiously  believe  these  laws  unconstitutional,  may 
probably  also  be  true.  But,  that  any  majority  holds  to  the  right  of 
direct  state  interference,  at  state  discretion,  the  right  of  nullifying 
acts  of  Congress,  by  acts  of  state  legislation,  is  more  than  I  know, 
and  what  I  shall  be  slow  to  believe. 

That  there  are  individuals,  besides  the  honorable  gentleman,  wrho 
do  maintain  these  opinions,  is  quite  certain.  I  recollect  the  recent 
expression  of  a  sentiment,  which  circumstances  attending  its  utter- 
ance and  publication,  justify  us  in  supposing  was  not  unpremedi- 
tated. "  The  sovereignty  of  the  state — never  to  be  controlled,  con- 
strued, or  decided  on,  but  by  her  own  feelings  of  honorable 
justice. " 

[Mr.  Hayne  here  rose,  and  said,  that  for  the  purpose  of  being 
clearly  understood,  he  would  state,  that  his  proposition  was  in  the 
words  of  the  Virginia  resolution,  as  follows: 

"  That  this  assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremptorily  declare,  that 
it  views  the  powers  of  the  federal  government,  as  resulting  from  the 
compact,  to  which  the  states  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense 
and  intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that  compact,  as  no 
farther  valid  than  they  are  authorized  by  the  grants  enumerated  in 
that  compact;  and  that,  in  case  of  a  deliberate  palpable  and  dangerous 
exercise  of  other  powers,  not  granted  by  the  said  compact,  the  states 
who  are  parties  thereto,  have  the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound  to  in- 
terpose, for  arresting  the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining, 


409 

within  their  respective  limits,  the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties 
appertaining  to  them."] 

Mr.  Webster  resumed: 

I  am  quite  aware,  Mr.  President,  of  the  existence  of  the  reso- 
lution which  the  gentleman  read,  and  has  now  repeated,  and  that 
he  relies  on  it  as  his  authority.  I  know  the  source,  too,  from  which 
it  is  understood  to  have  proceeded.  I  need  not  say  that  I  have 
much  respect  for  the  constitutional  opinions  of  Mr.  Madison;  they 
would  weigh  greatly  with  me,  always.  But,  before  the  authority 
of  his  opinion  be  vouched  for  the  gentleman's  proposition,  it  will  be 
proper  to  consider  what  is  the  fair  interpretation  of  that  resolution, 
to  which  Mr.  Madison  is  understood  to  have  given  his  sanction. 
As  the  gentleman  construes  it,  it  is  an  authority  for  him.  Possibly, 
he  may  not  have  adopted  the  right  construction.  That  resolution 
declares,  that,  in  the  case  of  the  dangerous  exercise  of  powers  not  granted 
by  the  general  government,  the  states  may  interpose  to  arrest  the  progress 
of  the  evil.  But  how  interpose,  and  what  does  this  declaration  pur- 
port ?  Does  it  mean  no  more,  than  that  there  may  be  extreme  cases,  in 
which  the  people,  in  any  mode  of  assembling,  may  resist  usurpation, 
and  relieve  themselves  from  a  tyrannical  government?  JNo  one  will 
deny  this.  Such  resistance  is  not  only  acknowledged  to  be  just  in 
America,  but  in  England  also.  Blackstone  admits  as  much,  in  the 
theory,  and  practice,  too,  of  the  English  constitution.  We,  sir, 
who  oppose  the  Carolina  doctrine,  do  not  deny  that  the  people  may, 
if  they  choose,  throw  off  any  government,  when  it  becomes  oppres- 
sive and  intolerable,  and  erect  a  better  in  its  stead.  We  all  know 
that  civil  institutions  are  established  for  the  public  benefit,  and  that 
when  they  cease  to  answer  the  ends  of  their  existence,  they  may  be 
changed.  But  I  do  not  understand  the  doctrine  now  contended  for 
to  be  that,  which,  for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  we  may  call  the  right 
of  revolution.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  maintain,  that,  with- 
out revolution,  without  civil  commotion,  without  rebellion,  a  remedy 
for  supposed  abuse  and  transgression  of  the  powers  of  the  general 
government,  lies  in  a  direct  appeal  to  the  interference  of  the  state 
governments.  [Mr.  Hayne  here  rose:  He  did  not  contend,  he  said, 
for  the  mere  right  of  revolution,  but  for  the  right  of  constitutional 
resistance.  What  he  maintained,  was,  that  in  case  of  a  plain,  pal- 
pable violation  of  the  constitution,  by  the  general  government,  a. 
state  may  interpose;  and  that  this  interposition  is  constitutional.] 

Mr.  Webster  resumed:  So,  sir,  I  understood  the  gentleman,, 
and  am  happy  to  find  that  I  did  not  misunderstand  him.  What  he 
contends  for,  is,  that  it  is  constitutional  to  interrupt  the  administra- 
tion of  the  constitution  itself,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  chosen 
and  sworn  to  administer  it,  by  the  direct  interference,  in  form  of  law, 
of  the  states,  in  virtue  of  their  sovereign  capacity.  The  inherent 
right  in  the  people  to  reform  their  government  I  do  not  deny:  and 
they  have  another  right,  and  that  is,  to  resist  unconstitutional  laws, 
without  overturning  the  government.  It  is  no  doctrine  of  mine,  that 
unconstitutional  laws  bind  the  people.  The  great  question  is,  ivhose 
prerogative  is  it  to  decide  on  the  constitutionality,  or  unconstitutionality 
of  the  laws?  On  that,  the  main  debate  hinges.  The  proposition, 
that,  in  case  of  a  supposed  violation  of  the  constitution  by  Congress, 

52  LL 


410 

the  states  have  a  constitutional  right  to  interfere,  and  annul  the  law 
of  Congress,  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman:  1  do  not  admit  it 
If  the  gentleman  had  intended  no  more  than  to  assert  the  right  of 
revolution,  for  justifiable  cause,  he  would  have  said  only  what  all 
agree  to.  But  I  cannot  conceive  that  there  can  be  a  middle  course, 
between  submission  to  the  laws,  when  regularly  pronounced  con- 
stitutional, on  the  one  hand,  and  open  resistance,  which  is  revolu- 
tion, or  rebellion,  on  the  other.  I  say,  the  right  of  a  state  to  annul 
a  law  of  Congress,  cannot  be  maintained,  but  on  the  ground  of  the 
unalienable  right  of  man  to  resist  oppression;  that  is  to  say,  upon 
the  ground  of  revolution.  I  admit  that  there  is  an  ultimate  violent 
remedy,  above  the  constitution,  and  in  defiance  of  the  constitution, 
which  may  be  resorted  to,  when  a  revolution  is  to  be  justified.  But 
I  do  not  admit  that,  under  the  constitution,  and  in  conformity  with  it, 
there  is  any  mode  in  which  a  state  government,  as  a  member  of  the 
union,  can  interfere  and  stop  the  progress  of  the  general  government, 
by  force  of  her  own  laws,  under  any  circumstances  whatever. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  government,  and 
the  source  of  its  power.  Whose  agent  is  it?  Is  it  the  creature  of 
the  state  legislatures,  or  the  creature  of  the  people?  If  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  be  the  agent  of  the  state  governments,  than 
they  may  control  it,  provided  they  can  agree  in  the  manner  of  con- 
trolling it;  if  it  be  the  agent  of  the  people,  then  the  people  alone  can 
control  it,  restrain  it,  modify,  or  reform  it.  It  is  observable  enough, 
that  the  doctrine  for  which  the  honorable  gentleman  contends,  leads 
him  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining,  not  only  that  this  general  govern- 
ment is  the  creature  of  the  states,  but  that  it  is  the  creature  of  each 
of  the  states  severally;  so  that  each  may  assert  the  power,  for  itself, 
of  determining  whether  it  acts  within  the  limits  of  its  authority.  It 
is  the  servant  of  four  and  twenty  masters,  of  different  wills  and  dif- 
ferent purposes,  and  yet  bound  to  obey  all.  This  absurdity  (for  it 
seems  no  less)  arises  from  a  misconception  as  to  the  origin  of  this  gov- 
ernment and  its  true  character.  It  is,  sir,  the  people's  constitution, 
the  people's  government;  made  for  the  people;  made  by  the  people; 
and  answerable  to  the  people.  The  people  of  the  United  States  have 
declared  that  this  constitution  shall  be  the  supreme  law.  We  must 
either  admit  the  proposition,  or  dispute  their  authority.  The  states 
are,  unquestionably,  sovereign,  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not 
affected  by  this  supreme  law.  But  the  state  legislatures,  as  political 
bodies,  however  sovereign,  are  yet  not  sovereign  over  the  people. 
So  far  as  the  people  have  given  power  to  the  general  government, 
so  far  the  grant  is  unquestionably  good,  and  the  government  holds 
of  the  people,  and  not  of  the  state  governments.  We  are  all  agents 
of  the  same  supreme  power,  the  people. — The  general  government 
and  the  state  governments  derive  their  authority  from  the  same 
source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the  other,  be  called  primary, 
though  one  is  definite  and  restricted  and  the  other  general  and 
residuary.  The  national  government  possesses  those  powers  which 
it  can  be  shown  the  people  have  conferred  on  it,  and  no  more.  All 
the  rest  belongs  to  the  state  governments  or  to  the  people  themselves. 
So  far  as  the  people  have  restrained  state  sovereignty,  by  the  expres- 
sion of  their  will,  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  far,  it 


411 

must  be  admitted,  state  sovereignty  is  effectually  controlled.  I  do 
not  contend  that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be  controlled  farther.  The  senti- 
ment to  which  I  have  referred,  propounds  that  state  sovereignty  is 
only  to  be  controlled  by  its  own  "  feeling  of  justice;"  that  is  to  say, 
it  is  not  to  be  controlled  at  all;  for  one  who  is  to  follow  his  own  feelings 
is  under  no  legal  control. — Now,  however  men  may  think  this  ought 
to  be,  the  fact  is,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  chosen 
to  impose  control  on  state  sovereignties.  There  are  those,  doubtless, 
who  wish  they  had  been  left  without  restraint;  but  the  constitution 
has  ordered  the  matter  differently.  To  make  war,  for  instance,  is  an 
exercise  of  sovereignty;  but  the  constitution  declares  that  no  state 
shall  make  war.  To  coin  money  is  another  exercise  of  sovereign  pow- 
er; but  no  state  is  at  liberty  to  coin  money.  Again,  the  constitution 
says  that  no  sovereign  state  shall  be  so  sovereign  as  to  make  a  treaty. 
These  prohibitions,  it  must  be  confessed,  are  a  control  on  the  state 
sovereignty  of  South  Carolina,  as  well  as  of  the  other  states,  which 
does  not  arise  "  from  her  own  feelings  of  honorable  justice."  Such 
an  opinion,  therefore,  is  in  defiance  of  the  plainest  provisions  of  the 
constitution. 

There  are  other  proceedings  of  public  bodies  which  have  already 
been  alluded  to,  and  to  which  I  refer  again  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining, more  fully,  what  is  the  length  and  breadth  of  that  doctrine, 
denominated  the  Carolina  doctrine,  which  the  honorable  member  has 
now  stood  up  on  this  floor  to  maintain.  In  one  of  them  I  find  it  re- 
solved, that  "the  tariff  of  1828,  and  every  other  tariff  designed  to 
promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense  of  others,  is  contrary 
to  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the  Federal  compact;  and,  as  such, 
a  dangerous,  palpable,  and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  by  a  de- 
termined majority,  wielding  the  general  government  beyond  the  lim- 
its of  its  delegated  powers,  as  calls  upon  the  states  which  compose 
the  suffering  minority,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  to  exercise  the 
powers  which,  as  sovereigns,  necessarily  devolve  upon  them,  when 
their  compact  is  violated." 

Observe,  sir,  that  this  resolution  holds  the  tariff  of  1828,  and  every 
other  tariff,  designed  to  promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense 
of  another,  to  be  such  a  dangerous,  palpable,  and  deliberate  usurpa- 
tion of  power,  as  calls  upon  the  states,  in  their  sovereign  capacity, 
to  interfere  by  their  own  authority.  This  denunciation,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, you  will  please  to  observe,  includes  our  old  tariff  of  1816,  as 
well  as  all  others;  because  that  was  established  to  promote  the  inter- 
est of  the  manufactures  of  cotton,  to  the  manifest  and  admitted  inju- 
ry of  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade.  Observe,  again,  that  all  the  quali- 
fications are  here  rehearsed  and  charged  upon  the  tariff,  which  are 
necessary  to  bring  the  case  within  the  gentleman's  proposition.  The 
tariff  is  a  usurpation;  it  is  a  dangerous  usurpation;  it  is  a  palpable 
usurpation;  it  is  a  deliberate  usurpation.  It  is  such  a  usurpation, 
therefore,  as  calls  upon  the  states  to  exercise  their  right  of  interfer- 
ence. Here  is  a  case,  then,  within  the  gentleman's  principles,  and 
all  his  qualifications  of  his  principles.  It  is  a  case  for  action.  The 
constitution  is  plainly,  dangerously,  palpably,  and  deliberately  viola- 
ted; and  the  states  must  interpose  their  own  authority  to  arrest  the 
law.     Let  us  suppose  the  state  of  South  Carolina  to  express  this 


412 

same  opinion,  by  the  voice  of  her  legislature.  That  would  be  very 
imposing;  but  what  then?  Is  the  voice  of  one  state  conclusive?  It 
so  happens  that  at  the  very  moment  when  South  Carolina  resolves 
that  the  tarifflaws  are  unconstitutional,  Pennsylvania  and  Kentucky, 
resolve  exactly  the  reverse.  They,  hold  those  laws  to  be  both  highly 
proper  and  strictly  constitutional.  And  now,  sir,  how  does  the  hon- 
orable member  propose  to  deal  with  this  case?  How  does  he 
relieve  us  from  this  difficulty,  upon  any  principle  of  his?  His  con- 
struction gets  us  into  it;  how  does  he  propose  to  get  us  out? 

In  Carolina,  the  tariff  is  a  palpable,  deliberate  usurpation;  Caro- 
lina, therefore,  may  nullify  it,  and  refuse  to  pay  the  duties.  In  Penn- 
sylvania, it  is  both  clearly  constitutional,  and  highly  expedient  ;  and 
there,  the  duties  are  to  be  paid.  And  yet,  we  live  under  a  govern- 
ment of  uniform  laws,  and  under  a  constitution,  too,  which  contains 
an  express  provision,  as  it  happens,  that  all  duties  shall  be  equal  in 
all  the  states.     Does  not  this  approach  absurdity? 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such  questions,  independent  of  either 
of  the  states,  is  not  the  whole  union  a  rope  of  sand?  Are  we  not 
thrown  back  again,  precisely,  upon  the  old  confederation? 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four-and-twenty  interpreters  of  con- 
stitutional law,  each  with  a  power  to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  with 
authority  to  bind  anybody  else,  and  this  constitutional  law  the  only 
bond  of  their  union !  What  is  such  a  state  of  things,  but  a  mere  con- 
nexion during  pleasure,  or,  to  use  the  phraseology  of  the  times, 
during  feeling  ?  And  that  feeling,  too,  not  the  feeling  of  the  people, 
who  established  the  constitution,  but  the  feeling  of  the  state  govern- 
ments. 

In  another  of  the  South  Carolina  addresses,  having  premised  that 
the  crisis  requires  "  all  the  concentrated  energy  of  passion,"  an 
attitude  of  open  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  union  is  advised.  Open 
resistance  to  the  laws,  then,  is  the  constitutional  remedy,  the  con- 
servative power  of  the  state,  which  the  South  Carolina  doctrines 
teach  for  the  redress  of  political  evils,  real  or  imaginary.  And  its 
authors  further  say,  that,  appealing  with  confidence  to  the  consti- 
tution itself,  to  justify  their  opinions,  they  cannot  consent  to  try  their 
accuracy  by  the  courts  of  justice.  In  one  sense,  indeed,  sir,  this 
is  assuming  an  attitude  of  open  resistance  in  favor  of  liberty.  But 
what  sort  of  liberty?  The  liberty  of  establishing  their  own  opinions, 
in  defiance  of  the  opinions  of  all  others;  the  liberty  of  judging  and 
of  deciding  exclusively  themselves,  in  a  matter  in  which  others  have 
as  much  right  to  judge  and  decide  as  they;  the  liberty  of  placing 
their  own  opinions  above  the  judgment  of  all  others,  above  the  laws, 
and  above  the  constitution.  This  is  their  liberty,  and  this  is  the  fair 
result  of  the  proposition  contended  for  by  the  honorable  gentleman. 
Or  it  may  be  more  properly  said,  it  is  identical  with  it,  rather  than  a 
result  from  it. 

In  the  same  publication,  we  find  the  following:  "Previously  to  our 
revolution,  when  the  arm  of  oppression  was  stretched  over  New  Eng- 
land, where  did  our  northern  brethren  meet  with  a  braver  sympathy 
than  that  which  sprung  from  the  bosoms  of  Carolinians.  We  had  no 
extortion,  no  oppression,  no  collision  with  the  king's  ministers,  no  naviga- 
lion  interests  springing  up,  in  envious  rivalry  of  England." 


413 

This  seems  extraordinary  language.  South  Carolina  no  collision 
with  the  king's  ministers  in  1775!  No  extortion!  No  oppression! 
But,  sir,  it  is  also  most  significant  language.  Does  any  man  doubt 
the  purpose  for  which  it  was  penned?  Can  any  one  fail  to  see  that  it 
was  designed  to  raise  in  the  reader's  mind  the  question,  whether,  at 
this  time — that  is  to  say,  in  1828 — South  Carolina  has  any  collision 
with  the  king's  ministers,  any  oppression,  or  extortion,  to  fear  from 
England  ?  Whether,  in  short,  England  is  not  as  naturally  the  friend 
of  South  Carolina,  as  New  England,  with  her  navigation  interests 
springing  up  in  envious  rivalry  of  England? 

Is  it  not  strange,  sir,  that  an  intelligent  man  in  South  Carolina, 
in  1828,  should  thus  labor  to  prove,  that,  in  1775,  there  was  no  hos- 
tility, no  cause  of  war,  between  South  Carolina  and  England?  That 
she  had  no  occasion,  in  reference  to  her  own  interest,  or  from  a  re- 
gard to  her  own  welfare,  to  take  up  arms  in  the  revolutionary  contest? 
Can  any  one  account  for  the  expression  of  such  strange  sentiments, 
and  their  circulation  through  the  state,  otherwise  than  by  supposing 
the  object  to  be,  what  I  have  already  intimated,  to  raise  the  question, 
if  they  had  no  ''•collision"  (mark  the  expression)with  the  ministers  of 
king  George  the  Third,  in  1775,  what  collision  have  they,  in  1828,  with 
the  ministers  of  king  George  the  Fourth?  What  is  there  now,  in 
the  existing  state  of  things,  to  separate  Carolina  from  Old,  more,  or 
rather,  than  from  JVeio  England? 

Resolutions,  sir,  have  been  recently  passed  by  the  legislature  of 
South  Carolina.  I  need  not  refer  to  them;  they  go  no  farther  than 
the  honorable  gentleman  himself  has  gone — and,  I  hope,  not  so  far. 
I  content  myself,  therefore,  with  debating  the  matter  with  him. 

And  now,  sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say  on  this  subject  is,  that,  at 
no  time,  and  under  no  circumstances,  has  New  England,  or  any  state 
in  New  England,  or  any  respectable  body  of  persons  in  New  Eng- 
land, or  any  public  man  of  standing  in  New  England,  put  forth  such 
a  doctrine  as  this  Carolina  doctrine. 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he  can  find  none,  to  support  his 
own  opinions  by  New  England  authority.  New  England  has  stud- 
ied the  constitution  in  other  schools,  and  under  other  teachers.  She 
looks  upon  it  with  other  regards,  and  deems  more  highly  and  reverent- 
ly both  of  its  just  authority,  and  its  utility  and  excellence.  The  his- 
tory of  her  legislative  proceedings  may  be  traced — the  ephemeral 
effusions  of  temporary  bodies,  called  together  by  the  excitement  of 
the  occasion,  may  be  hunted  up — they  have  been  hunted  up.  The 
opinions  and  votes  of  her  public  men,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  may 
be  explored — it  will  all  be  in  vain.  The  Carolina  doctrine  can  de- 
rive from  her  neither  countenance  nor  support.  She  rejects  it  now; 
she  always  did  reject  it;  and  till  she  loses  her  senses,  she  always 
will  reject  it.  The  honorable  member  has  referred  to  expressions,  on 
the  subject  of  the  embargo  law,  made  in  this  place,  by  an  honorable 
and  venerable  gentleman,  (Mr.  Hillhouse,)  now  favoring  us  with  his 
presence.  He  quotes  that  distinguished  senator  as  saying,  that,  in 
his  judgment,  the  embargo  law  was  unconstitutional,  and  that,  there- 
fore, in  his  opinion,  the  people  were  not  bound  to  obey  it.  That, 
sir,  is  perfectly  constitutional  language.  An  unconstitutional  law  is 
not  binding;   but  then  it  does  not  rest  with  a  resolution  or  a  law  of  a 


414 

state  legislature  to  decide  whether  an  act  of  Congress  be,  or  be  not, 
constitutional.  An  unconstitutional  act  of  Congress  would  not  bind 
the  people  of  this  district,  although  they  have  no  legislature  to  inter- 
fere in  their  behalf;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  constitutional  law  of 
Congress  does  bind  the  citizens  of  every  state,  although  all  their 
legislatures  should  undertake  to  annul  it  by  act  or  resolution.  The 
venerable  Connecticut  senator  is  a  constitutional  lawyer,  of  sound 
principles,  and  enlarged  knowledge;  a  statesman  practised  and  expe- 
rienced, bred  in  the  company  of  Washington,  and  holding  just  views 
upon  the  nature  of  our  governments.  He  believed  the  embargo 
unconstitutional,  and  so  did  others;  but  what  then  ?  Who,  did  he  sup- 
pose, was  to  decide  that  question?  The  state  legislatures?  Certain- 
ly not.  No  such  sentiment  ever  escaped  his  lips.  Let  us  follow  up, 
sir,  this  New  England  opposition  to  the  embargo  laws;  let  us  trace 
it,  till  we  discern  the  principle,  which  controlled  and  governed  New 
England,  throughout  the  whole  course  of  that  opposition.  We  shall 
then  see  what  similarity  there  is  between  the  New  England  school  of 
constitutional  opinions,  and  this  modern  Carolina  school.  The  gen- 
tleman, I  think,  read  a  petition  from  some  single  individual,  addres- 
sed to  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  asserting  the  Carolina  doc- 
trine— that  is,  the  right  of  state  interference  to  arrest  the  laws  of  the 
union.  The  fate  of  that  petition  shows  the  sentiment  of  the  legisla- 
ture. It  met  no  favor.  The  opinions  of  Massachusetts  were  other- 
wise. They  had  been  expressed,  in  1798,  in  answer  to  the  resolu- 
tions of  Virginia,  and  she  did  not  depart  from  them,  nor  bend  them 
to  the  times.  Misgoverned,  wronged,  oppressed  as  she  felt  herself 
to  be,  she  still  held  fast  her  integrity  to  the  union.  The  gentleman 
may  find  in  her  proceedings  much  evidence  of  dissatisfaction  with  the 
measures  of  government,  and  great  and  deep  dislike  to  the  embargo; 
all  this  makes  the  case  so  much  the  stronger  for  her;  for,  notwith- 
standing all  this  dissatisfaction  and  dislike,  she  claimed  no  right,  still, 
to  sever  asunder  the  bonds  of  the  union.  There  was  heat,  and  there 
was  anger,  in  her  political  feeling — be  it  so — her  heat  or  her  anger  did 
not,  nevertheless,  betray  her  into  infidelity  to  the  government.  The 
gentleman  labors  to  prove  that  she  disliked  the  embargo,  as  much  as 
South  Carolina  dislikes  the  tariff,  and  expressed  her  dislike  as  strong- 
ly. Be  it  so;  but  did  she  propose  the  Carolina  remedy? — did  she  threat- 
en to  interfere,  by  state  authority,  to  annul  the  laws  of  the  union?  That 
is  the  question  for  the  gentleman's  consideration. 

No  doubt,  sir,  a  great  majority  of  the  people  of  New  England 
conscientiously  believed  the  embargo  law  of  1807  unconstitutional; 
as  conscientiously,  certainly,  as  the  people  of  South  Carolina  hold 
that  opinion  of  the  tariff.  They  reasoned  thus:  Congress  has  pow- 
er to  regulate  commerce;  but  here  is  a  law,  they  said,  stopping  all 
commerce,  and  stopping  it  indefinitely.  The  law  is  perpetual;  that 
is,  it  is  not  limited  in  point  of  time,  and  must,  of  course,  continue, 
until  it  shall  be  repealed  by  some  other  law.  It  is  as  perpetual 
therefore,  as  the  law  against  treason  or  murder.  Now,  is  this  reg- 
ulating commerce,  or  destroying  it?  Is  it  guiding,  controlling, 
giving  the  rule  to  commerce,  as  a  subsisting  thing;  or  is  it  putting 
an  end  to  it  altogether?  Nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  a  ma- 
jority in  New  England,  deemed  this  law  a  violation  of  the  constitu- 


415 

tion.  The  very  case  required  by  the  gentleman  to  justify  state  in- 
terference, had  then  arisen.  Massachusetts  believed  this  law  to  be 
"  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power,  not  grant- 
ed by  the  constitution."  Deliberate  it  was,  for  it  was  long  continued; 
palpable,  she  thought  it,  as  no  words  in  the  constitution  gave  the 
power,  and  only  a  construction,  in  her  opinion  most  violent,  raised 
it;  dangerous  it  was,  since  it  threatened  utter  ruin  to  her  most  im- 

Sortant  interests.  Here,  then,  was  a  Carolina  case.  How  did 
Iassachusetts  deal  with  it  ?  It  was,  as  she  thought,  a  plain,  mani- 
fest, palpable  violation  of  the  constitution,  and  it  brought  ruin  to  her 
doors.  Thousands  of  families,  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  indi- 
viduals, were  beggared  by  it.  While  she  saw  and  felt  all  this,  she 
saw  and  felt,  also,  that,  as  a  measure  of  national  policy,  it  was  per- 
fectly futile;  that  the  country  was  no  way  benefited  by  that  which 
caused  so  much  individual  distress;  that  it  was  efficient  only  for  the 
production  of  evil,  and  all  that  evil  inflicted  on  ourselves.  In  such 
a  case,  under  such  circumstances,  how  did  Massachusetts  demean 
herself?  Sir,  she  remonstrated,  she  memorialized,  she  addressed 
herself  to  the  general  government,  not  exactly  "  with  the  concen- 
trated energy  of  passion,"  but  with  her  own  strong  sense,  and  the 
energy  of  sober  conviction.  But  she  did  not  interpose  the  arm  of 
her  own  power  to  arrest  the  law,  and  break  the  embargo.  Far  from 
it.  Her  principles  bound  her  to  two  things;  and  she  followed  her 
principles,  lead  where  they  might.  First,  to  submit  to  every  con- 
stitutional law  of  Congress,  and,  secondly,  if  the  constitutional  va- 
lidity of  the  law  be  doubted,  to  refer  that  question  to  the  decision  of 
the  proper  tribunals.  The  first  principle  is  vain  and  ineffectual 
without  the  second.  A  majority  of  us  in  New  England  believed  the 
embargo  law  unconstitutional;  but  the  great  question  was,  and  al- 
ways will  be,  in  such  cases,  who  is  to  decide  this? — Who  is  to  judge 
between  the  people  and  the  government?  And,  sir,  it  is  quite  plain, 
that  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  on  the  govern- 
ment itself,  to  be  exercised  by  its  appropriate  department,  and  under 
its  own  responsibility  to  the  people,  this  power  of  deciding  ulti- 
mately and  conclusively,  upon  the  just  extent  of  its  own  authority. 
If  this  had  not  been  done  we  should  not  have  advanced  a  single 
step  beyond  the  old  confederation. 

Being  fully  of  opinion  that  the  embargo  law  was  unconstitutional, 
the  people  of  New  England  were  yet  equally  clear  in  the  opinion — 
it  was  a  matter  they  did  doubt  upon — that  the  question,  after  all, 
must  be  decided  by  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  United  States. 
Before  those  tribunals,  therefore,  they  brought  the  question.  Under 
the  provisions  of  the  law,  they  had  given  bonds,  to  millions  in  amount, 
and  which  were  alleged  to  be  forfeited.  They  suffered  the  bonds 
to  be  sued,  and  thus  raised  the  question.  In  the  oldfashioned  way  of 
settling  disputes,  they  went  to  law.  The  case  came  to  hearing,  and 
solemn  argument;  and  he  who  espoused  their  cause,  and  stood  up 
for  them  against  the  validity  of  the  embargo  act,  was  none  other 
than  that  great  man,  of  whom  the  gentleman  has  made  honorable  men- 
tion, Samuel  Dexter.  He  was  then,  sir,  in  the  fulness  of  his  know- 
ledge, and  the  maturity  of  his  strength.  He  had  retired  from  long 
and  distinguished  public  service  here,  to  the  renewed  pursuit  of  pro- 


SIVERSIT* 


416 

fessional  duties;  carrying  with  him  all  that  enlargement  and  expansion, 
all  the  new  strength  and  force,  which  an  acquaintance  with  the  more 
general  subjects  discussed  in  the  national  councils,  is  capable  of 
adding  to  professional  attainment,  in  a  mind  of  true  greatness  and 
comprehension.  He  was  a  lawyer,  and  he  was  also  a  statesman. 
He  had  studied  the  constitution,  when  he  filled  public  station,  that 
he  might  defend  it;  he  had  examined  its  principles  that  he  might 
maintain  them. — More  than  all  men,  or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man, 
he  was  attached  to  the  general  government  and  to  the  union  of  the 
states.  His  feelings  and  opinions  all  ran  in  that  direction.  A  ques- 
tion of  constitutional  law,  too,  was,  of  all  subjects,  that  one  which 
was  best  suited  to  his  talents  and  learning. — Aloof  from  technicality, 
and  unfettered  by  artificial  rule,  such  a  question  gave  opportunity 
for  that  deep  and  clear  analysis,  that  mighty  grasp  of  principle, 
which  so  much  distinguished  his  higher  efforts.  His  very  statement 
was  argument;  his  inference  seemed  demonstration.  The  earnest- 
ness of  his  own  conviction,  wrought  conviction  in  others.  One  was 
convinced,  and  believed,  and  assented,  because  it  was  gratifying, 
delightful  to  think,  and  feel,  and  believe,  in  unison  with  an  intellect  of 
such  evident  superiority. 

Mr.  Dexter,  sir,  such  as  I  have  described  him,  argued  the  New 
England  cause.  He  put  into  his  effort  his  whole  heart,  as  well  as  all 
the  powers  of  his  understanding;  for  he  had  avowed,  in  the  most  pub- 
lic manner,  his  entire  concurrence  with  his  neighbours,  on  the  point 
in  dispute.  He  argued  the  cause,  it  was  lost,  and  New  England 
submitted.  The  established  tribunals  pronounced  the  law  constitu- 
tional, and  New  England  acquiesced.  Now,  sir,  is  not  this  the 
exact  opposite  of  the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Caroli- 
na? According  to  him,  instead  of  referring  to  the  judicial  tribunals, 
we  should  have  broken  up  the  embargo  by  laws  of  our  own;  we 
should  have  repealed  it,  quoad  New  England;  for  we  had  a  strong, 
palpable,  and  oppressive  case.  Sir,  we  believed  the  embargo  un- 
constitutional; but  still  that  was  matter  of  opinion,  and  who  was  to 
decide  it?  We  thought  it  a  clear  case;  but,  nevertheless,  we  did  not 
take  the  law  into  our  own  hands,  because  we  did  not  wish  to  bring  about  a 
revolution,  nor  to  break  up  the  union:  for  I  maintain,  that,  between  sub 
mission  to  the  decision  of  the  constituted  tribunals,  and  revolution,  or 
disunion,  there  is  no  middle  ground — there  is  no  ambiguous  condition, 
half  allegiance,  and  half  rebellion.  And,  sir,  how  futile,  how  very 
futile  it  is,  to  admit  the  right  of  state  inteference,  and  then  attempt  to 
save  it  from  the  character  of  unlawful  resistance,  by  adding  terms  of 
qualification  to  the  causes,  and  occasions,  leaving  all  these  qualifica- 
tions, like  the  case  itself,  in  the  discretion  of  the  state  governments. 
It  must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is  said,  a  deliberate  case;  a  palpable  case;  a 
dangerous  case.  But  then  the  state  is  still  left  at  liberty  to  decide 
for  herself,  what  is  clear,  what  is  deliberate,  what  is  palpable,  what 
is  dangerous.  Do  adjectives  and  epithets  avail  anything?  Sir,  the 
human  mind  is  so  constituted,  that  the  merits  of  both  sides  of  a  con- 
troversy appear  very  clear,  and  very  palpable,  to  those  who  respec- 
tively espouse  them;  and  both  sides  usually  grow  clearer  as  the  con- 
troversy advances.  South  Carolina  sees  unconstitutionality  in  the 
tariff;  she  sees  oppression  there,  also;  and  she  sees  danger.   Pennsyl- 


417 

vania,  with  a  vision  not  less  sharp,  looks  at  the  same  tariff,  and  sees 
no  such  thing  in  it — she  sees  it  all  constitutional,  all  useful,  all  safe. 
The  faith  of  South  Carolina  is  strengthened  by  opposition,  and  she 
now  not  only  sees,  but  Resolves,  that  the  tariff  is  palpably  unconsti- 
tutional, oppressive  and  dangerous:  but  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  be- 
hind her  neighbours,  and  equally  willing  to  strengthen  her  own  faith 
by  a  confident  asseveration,  Resolves,  also,  and  gives  to  every  warm 
affirmative  of  South  Carolina,  a  plain,  downright,  Pennsylvania  neg- 
ative. South  Carolina,  to  show  the  strength  and  unity  of  her  opin- 
ion, brings  her  assembly  to  a  unanimity,  within  seven  voices;  Penn- 
sylvania, not  to  be  outdone  in  this  respect  more  than  others,  reduces 
her  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote.  Now,  sir,  again,  I  ask  the 
gentleman,  what  is  to  be  done  ?  Are  these  states  both  right  ?  Is  he 
bound  to  consider  them  both  right?  If  not,  which  is  in  the  wrong? 
or  rather,  which  has  the  best  right  to  decide?  And  if  he,  and  if  I, 
are  not  to  know  what  the  constitution  means,  and  what  it  is,  till 
those  two  state  legislatures,  and  the  twenty-two  others,  shall  agree 
in  its  construction,  what  have  we  sworn  to,  when  we  have  sworn  to 
maintain  it  ?  I  was  forcibly  struck,  sir,  with  one  reflection,  as  the 
gentleman  went  on  in  his  speech.  He  quoted  Mr.  Madison's  reso- 
lutions, to  prove  that  a  state  may  interfere,  in  a  case  of  deliberate, 
palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted.  The 
honorable  member  supposes  the  tariff  law  to  be  such  an  exercise  of 
power;  and  that,  consequently,  a  case  has  arisen  in  which  the  state 
may,  if  it  see  fit,  interfere  by  its  own  law.  Now  it  so  happens,  nev- 
ertheless, that  Mr.  Madison  deems  this  same  tariff  law  quite  consti- 
tutional. Instead  of  a  clear  and  palpable  violation,  it  is,  in  his  judg- 
ment, no  violation  at  all.  So  that,  while  they  use  his  authority  for 
a  hypothetical  case,  they  reject  it  in  the  very  case  before  them.     All 

this,  sir,  shows  the  inherent futility I  had  almost  used  a  stronger 

word — of  conceding  this  power  of  interference  to  the  states,  and  then 
attempting  to  secure  it  from  abuse  by  imposing  qualifications,  of 
which  the  states  themselves  are  to  judge.  One  of  two  things  is  true; 
either  the  laws  of  the  union  are  beyond  the  discretion  and  beyond 
the  control  of  the  states;  or  else  we  have  no  constitution  of  general 
government,  and  are  thrust  back  again  to  the  days  of  the  confede- 
racy. 

Let  me  here  say,  sir,  that  if  the  gentleman's  doctrine  had  been 
received  and  acted  upon  in  New  England,  in  the  times  of  the  em- 
bargo and  non-intercourse,  we  should  probably  not  now  have  been 
here.  The  government  would  very  likely,  have  gone  to  pieces,  and 
crumbled  into  dust.  No  stronger  case  can  ever  arise  than  existed 
under  those  laws;  no  states  can  ever  entertain  a  clearer  conviction 
than  the  New  England  states  then  entertained;  and  if  they  had  been 
under  the  influence  of  that  heresy  of  opinion,  as  I  must  call  it,  which 
the  honorable  member  espouses,  this  union  would,  in  all  probabili- 
ty, have  been  scattered^to  the  four  winds.  I  ask  the  gentleman, 
therefore,  to  apply  his  principles  to  that  case;  I  ask  him  to  come 
forth  and  declare,  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  New  England  states, 
would  have  been  justified  in  interfering  to  break  up  the  embargo  sys- 
tem, under  the  conscientious  opinions  which  they  held  upon  it  ?  Had 
they  a  right  to  annul  that  law?  Does  he  admit  or  deny?  If  that 
53 


J 


418 

which  is  thought  palpably  unconstitutional  in  South  Carolina,  justi- 
fies that  state  in  arresting  the  progress  of  the  law,  tell  me,  whether 
that  which  was  thought  palpably  unconstitutional  also  in  Massachu- 
setts, would  have  justified  her  in  doing  the  same  thing?  Sir,  I  deny 
the  whole  doctrine.  It  has  not  a  foot  of  ground  in  the  constitution 
to  stand  on.  No  public  man  of  reputation  ever  advanced  it  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, in  the  warmest  times,  or  could  maintain  himself  upon  it 
there  at  any  time. 

I  wish  now,  sir,  to  make  a  remark  upon  the  Virginia  resolutions  of 
1798.  I  cannot  undertake  to  say  how  these  resolutions  were  under- 
stood by  those  who  passed  them.  Their  language  is  not  a  little  in- 
definite. In  the  case  of  the  exercise  by  Congress,  of  a  dangerous 
power,  not  granted  to  them,  the  resolutions  assert  the  right,  on  the 
part  of  the  state,  to  interfere,  and  arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil. 
This  is  susceptible  of  more  than  one  interpretation.  It  may  mean 
no  more  than  that  the  states  may  interfere  by  complaint  and  remon- 
strance; or  by  proposing  to  the  people  an  alteration  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  This  would  all  be  quite  unobjectionable;  or,  it  may 
be,  that  no  more  is  meant  than  to  assert  the  general  right  of  revolu 
tion,  as  against  all  governments,  in  cases  of  intolerable  oppression. 
This  no  one  doubts;  and  this,  in  my  opinion,  is  all  that  he  who  fram- 
ed the  resolutions  could  have  meant  by  it:  for  I  shall  not  readily 
believe,  that  he  was  ever  of  opinion  that  a  state,  under  the  constitu- 
tion, and  in  conformity  with  it,  could,  upon  the  ground  of  her  own 
opinion  of  its  unconstitutionality,  however  clear  and  palpable  she 
might  think  the  case,  annul  a  law  of  Congress,  so  far  as  it  should 
operate  on  herself,  by  her  own  legislative  power. 

I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  sir,  whence  is  this  supposed  right  of  the 
states  derived? — where  do  they  find  the  power  to  interfere  with  the 
laws  of  the  union?  Sir,  the  opinion  which  the  honorable  gentleman 
maintains,  is  a  notion,  founded  in  a  total  misapprehension,  in  my  judg- 
ment, of  the  origin  of  this  government,  and  of  the  foundation  on 
which  it  stands.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  popular  government,  erected  by 
the  people;  those  who  administer  it,  responsible  to  the  people;  and 
itself  capable  of  being  amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  people  may 
choose  it  should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as  truly  emanating  from 
the  people,  as  the  state  governments.  It  is  created  for  one  purpose; 
the  state  governments  for  another.  It  has  its  own  powers;  they  have 
theirs.  There  is  no  more  authority  with  them  to  arrest  the  operation 
of  a  law  of  Congress,  than  with  Congress  to  arrest  the  operation  of 
their  laws.  We  are  here  to  administer  a  constitution  emanating 
immediately  from  the  people,  and  trusted,  by  them,  to  our  administra- 
tion. It  is  not  the  creature  of  the  state  governments.  It  is  of  no 
moment  to  the  argument,  that  certain  acts  of  the  state  legislatures 
are  necessary  to  fill  our  seats  in  this  body.  That  is  not  one  of  their 
original  state  powers,  a  part  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  state.  It  is  a 
duty  which  the  people,  by  the  constitution  itself,  have  imposed  on 
the  state  legislatures;  and  which  they  might  have  left  to  be  perfor- 
med elsewhere,  if  they  had  seen  fit.  So  they  have  left  the  choice  of 
President  with  electors;  but  all  this  does  not  affect  the  proposition, 
that  this  whole  government,  President,  Senate,  and  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, is  a  popular  government.     It  leaves  it  still  all  its  popu- 


419 

lar  character.  The  governor  of  a  state,  (in  some  of  the  states)  is 
chosen,  not  directly  by  the  people,  but  by  those  who  are  chosen  by 
the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  performing,  among  other  duties,  that 
of  electing  a  governor.  Is  the  government  of  the  state,  on  that  ac- 
count, not  a  popular  government?  This  government,  sir,  is  the  in- 
dependent offspring  of  the  popular  will.  It  is  not  the  creature  of 
state  legislatures;  nay,  more,  if  the  whole  truth  must  be  told,  the 
people  brought  it  into  existence,  established  it,  and  have  hitherto 
supported  it,  for  the  very  purpose,  amongst  others,  of  imposing  cer- 
tain salutary  restraints  on  state  sovereignties.  The  states  cannot 
now  make  war;  they  cannot  contract  alliances;  they  cannot  make 
each  for  itself,  separate  regulations  of  commerce;  they  cannot  lay 
imposts;  they  cannot  coin  money.  If  this  constitution,  sir,  be  the 
creature  of  state  legislatures,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  has  obtain- 
ed a  strange  control  over  the  volitions  of  its  creators. 

The  people,  then,  sir,  erected  this  government.  They  gave  it  a 
constitution,  and  in  that  constitution  they  have  enumerated  the  pow- 
ers which  they  bestow  on  it.  They  have  made  it  a  limited  govern- 
ment. They  have  defined  its  authority.  They  have  restrained  it 
to  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as  are  granted;  and  all  others  they 
declare,  are  reserved  to  the  states,  or  the  people.  But,  sir,  they 
have  not  stopped  here.  If  they  had,  they  would  have  accomplished 
but  half  their  work.  No  definition  can  be  so  clear,  as  to  avoid  pos- 
sibility of  doubt;  no  limitation  so  precise,  as  to  exclude  all  uncertain- 
ty. Who  then,  shall  construe  this  grant  of  the  people?  Who  shall 
interpret  their  will,  where  it  may  be  supposed  they  have  left  it  doubt- 
ful? With  whom  do  they  repose  this  ultimate  right  of  deciding  on 
the  powers  of  the  government  ?  Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this  in 
the  fullest  manner.  They  have  left  it,  with  the  government  itself, 
in  its  appropriate  branches.  Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the  main 
design,  for  which  the  whole  constitution  was  framed  and  adopted,  was 
to  establish  a  government  that  should  not  be  obliged  to  act  through 
state  agency,  or  depend  on  state  opinion  and  state  discretion.  The 
people  had  had  quite  enough  of  that  kind  of  government,  under  the 
confederacy.  Under  that  system,  the  legal  action — the  application 
of  law  to  individuals,  belonged  exclusively  to  the  states.  Congress 
could  only  recommend — their  acts  were  not  of  binding  force,  till 
the  states  had  adopted  and  sanctioned  them?  Are  we  in  that  condi- 
tion still  ?  Are  we  yet  at  the  mercy  of  state  discretion,  and  state 
construction?  Sir,  if  we  are,  then  vain  will  be  our  attempt  to  main- 
tain the  constitution  under  which  we  sit. 

But,  sir,  the  people  have  wisely  provided,  in  the  constitution  it- 
self, a  proper,  suitable  mode  and  tribunal  for  settling  questions  of 
constitutional  law.  There  are,  in  the  constitution,  grants  of  powers 
to  Congress;  and  restrictions  on  these  powers.  There  are,  also, 
prohibitions  on  the  states.  Some  authority  must,  therefore,  neces- 
sarily exist,  having  the  ultimate  jurisdiction  to  fix  and  ascertain  the 
interpretation  of  these  grants,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions.  The 
constitution  has  itself  pointed  out,  ordained,  and  established  that 
authority.  How  has  it  accomplished  this  great  and  essential  end? 
By  declaring,  sir,  that  "  the  constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United 
States y  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 


420 

anything  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing." 

This,  sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this  the  supremacy  of  the  con 
stitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  is  declared.  The  people  so 
will  it.  No  state  law  is  to  be  valid,  which  comes  in  conflict  with  the 
constitution,  or  any  law  of  the  United  States  passed  in  pursuance  of 
it.  But  who  shall  decide  this  question  of  interference  ?  To  whom  lies 
the  last  appeal  ?  This,  sir,  the  constitution  itself  decides,  also,  by  de- 
claring, "  that  the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  arising  under 
the  constitution  and  laivs  of  the  United  States."  These  two  provisions, 
sir,  cover  the  whole  ground.  They  are,  in  truth,  the  keystone  of 
the  arch.  With  these,  it  is  a  constitution ;  without  them,  it  is  a  confed- 
eracy. In  pursuance  of  these  clear  and  express  provisions,  Con- 
gress established,  at  its  very  first  session,  in  the  judicial  act,  a  mode 
for  carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bringing  all  questions  of 
constitutional  power  to  the  final  decision  of  the  supreme  court.  It 
then,  sir,  became  a  government.  It  then  had  the  means  of  self-pro- 
tection; and,  but  for  this,  it  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  now 
among  things  which  are  past.  Having  constituted  the  government, 
and  declared  its  powers,  the  people  have  further  said,  that  since  some- 
body must  decide  on  the  extent  of  these  powers,  the  government  shall 
itself  decide;  subject,  always,  like  other  popular  governments,  to  its 
responsibility  to  the  people.  And  now,  sir,  I  repeat,  how  is  it  that  a 
state  legislature  acquires  any  power  to  interfere  ?  Who,  or  what, 
gives  them  the  right  to  say  to  the  people,  "  We,  who  are  your  agents 
and  servants  for  one  purpose,  will  undertake  to  decide,  that  your 
other  agents  and  servants,  appointed  by  you  for  another  purpose, 
have  transcended  the  authority  you  gave  them!  "  The  reply  would 
be,  I  think,  not  impertinent — "  Who  made  you  a  judge  over  anoth- 
er's servants?     To  their  own  masters  they  stand  or  fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  state  legislatures  altogether.  It  cannot 
stand  the  test  of  examination.  Gentlemen  may  say,  that  in  an  ex- 
treme case,  a  state  government  might  protect  the  people  from  intol- 
erable oppression.  Sir,  in  such  a  case,  the  people  might  protect 
themselves,  without  the  aid  of  the  state  governments.  Such  a  case 
warrants  revolution.  It  must  make,  when  it  comes,  a  law  for  itself. 
A  nullifying  act  of  a  state  legislature  cannot  alter  the  case,  nor  make 
resistance  any  more  lawful.  In  maintaining  these  sentiments,  sir, 
I  am  but  asserting  the  rights  of  the  people.  I  state  what  they  have 
declared,  and  insist  on  their  right  to  declare  it.  They  have  chosen 
to  repose  this  power  in  the  general  government,  and  I  think  it  my 
duty  to  support  it,  like  other  constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  jurisdiction  of  South  Carolina, 
or  any  other  state,  to  prescribe  my  constitutional  duty;  or  to  settle, 
between  me  and  the  people,  the  validity  of  laws  of  Congress,  for 
which  I  have  voted.  I  decline  her  umpirage.  I  have  not  sworn 
to  support  the  constitution  according  to  her  construction  of  its  claus- 
es. I  have  not  stipulated,  by  my  oath  of  office,  or  otherwise,  to 
come  under  any  responsibility,  except  to  the  people,  and  those  whom 
they  have  appointed  to  pass  upon  the  question,  whether  laws,  sup- 
ported by  my  votes,  conform  to  the  constitution  of  the  country.  And, 
sir,  if  we  look  to  the  general  nature   of  the  case,  could  anything 


421 

have  been  more  preposterous,  than  to  make  a  government  for  the 
whole  union,  and  yet  leave  its  powers  subject,  not  to  one  interpreta- 
tion, but  to  thirteen,  or  twenty-four,  interpretations?  Instead  of 
one  tribunal,  established  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with  power  to  de- 
cide for  all — shall  constitutional  questions  be  left  to  four-and-twenty 
popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  bound  to 
respect  the  decisions  of  others;  and  each  at  liberty,  too,  to  give  a  new 
construction  on  every  new  election  of  its  own  members?  Would 
anything,  with  such  a  principle  in  it,  or  rather  with  such  a  destitu- 
tion of  all  principle,  be  fit  to  be  called  a  government  ?  No,  sir.  It 
should  not  be  denominated  a  constitution.  It  should  be  called,  rath- 
er, a  collection  of  topics,  for  everlasting  controversy;  heads  of  de- 
bate for  a  disputatious  people.  It  would  not  be  a  government.  It 
would  not  be  adequate  to  any  practical  good,  nor  fit  for  any  country 
to  live  under.  To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  misunderstood,  al- 
low me  to  repeat  again,  in  the  fullest  manner,  that  I  claim  no  pow- 
ers for  the  government  by  forced  or  unfair  construction.  I  admit, 
that  it  is  a  government  of  strictly  limited  powers;  of  enumerated, 
specified,  and  particularized  powers;  and  that  whatsoever  is  not  gran- 
ted, is  withheld.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  and  however  the  grant 
of  powers  may  be  expressed,  its  limit  and  extent  may  yet,  in  some 
cases,  admit  of  doubt;  and  the  general  government  would  be  good  for 
nothing,  it  would  be  incapable  of  long  existing,  if  some  mode  had 
not  been  provided,  in  which  those  doubts,  as  they  should  arise,  might 
be  peaceably,  but  authoritatively,  solved. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the  honorable  gentleman's 
doctrine  a  little  into  its  practical  application.  Let  us  look  at  his 
probable  modus  operandi.  If  a  thing  can  be  done,  an  ingenious  man 
can  tell  how  it  is  to  be  done.  Now,  I  wish  to  be  informed  how 
this  state  interference  is  to  be  put  in  practice,  without  violence, 
bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will  take  the  existing  case  of  the 
tariff  law.  South  Carolina  is  said  to  have  made  up  her  opinion 
upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it,  (as  we  probably  shall  not,)  she  will 
then  apply  to  the  case  the  remedy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we 
must  suppose,  pass  a  law  of  her  legislature,  declaring  the  several 
acts  of  Congress,  usually  called  the  tariff  laws,  null  and  void,  so  far 
as  they  respect  South  Carolina,  or  the  citizens  thereof.  So  far,  all 
is  a  paper  transaction,  and  easy  enough.  But  the  collector  at 
Charleston,  is  collecting  the  duties  imposed  by  these  tariff  laws — 
he,  therefore,  must  be  stopped.  The  collector  will  seize  the  goods 
if  the  tariff  duties  are  not  paid.  The  state  authorities  will  under- 
take their  rescue:  the  marshal,  with  his  posse,  will  come  to  the  col- 
lector's aid,  and  here  the  contest  begins.  The  militia  of  the  state 
will  be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nullifying  act.  They  will  march, 
sir,  under  a  very  gallant  leader:  for  I  believe  the  honorable  member 
himself  commands  the  militia  of  that  part  of  the  state.  He  will 
raise  the  nullifying  act  on  his  standard,  and  spread  it  out  as  his 
banner!  It  will  have  a  preamble,  bearing,  That  the  tariff  laws  are 
palpable,  deliberate,  and  dangerous  violations  of  the  constitution! 
He  will  proceed,  with  this  banner  flying,  to  the  custom-house  in 
Charleston: 

"  All  the  while, 
Sonorous  metal,  blowing  martial  sounds."  MM 


422 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the  collector  that  he  must 
collect  no  more  duties  under  any  of  the  tariff  laws.  This,  he  will 
be  somewhat  puzzled  to  say,  by  the  way,  with  a  grave  countenance, 
considering  what  hand  South  Carolina,  herself,  had  in  that  of  1816. 
But,  sir,  the  collector  would,  probably,  not  desist,  at  his  bidding. 
He  would  show  him  the  law  of  Congress,  the  treasury  instruction,  and 
his  own  oath  of  office.  He  would  say,  he  should  perform  his  duty, 
come  what  come  might.  Here  would  ensue  a  pause:  for  they  say 
that  a  certain  stillness  precedes  the  tempest.  The  trumpeter  would 
hold  his  breath,  awhile,  and  before  all  this  military  array  should  fall 
on  the  custom-house,  collector,  clerks,  and  all,  it  is  very  probable 
some  of  those  composing  it,  would  request  of  their  gallant  command- 
er in-chief,  to  be  informed  a  little  upon  the  point  of  law;  for  they 
have,  doubtless,  a  just  respect  for  his  opinions  as  a  lawyer,  as  well 
as  for  his  bravery  as  a  soldier.  They  know  he  has  read  Blackstone 
and  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  Turrene  and  Vauban.  They  would 
ask  him,  therefore,  something  concerning  their  rights  in  this  matter. 
They  would  inquire,  whether  it  was  not  somewhat  dangerous  to 
resist  a  law  of  the  United  States.  What  would  be  the  nature  of 
their  offence,  they  would  wish  to  learn,  if  they,  by  military  force 
and  array,  resisted  the  execution  in  Carolina  of  a  law  of  the  United 
States,  and  it  should  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  law  was  constitution- 
al? He  would  answer,  of  course,  treason.  No  lawyer  could  give 
any  other  answer.  John  Fries,  he  would  tell  them,  had  learned 
that,  some  years  ago.  How,  then,  they  would  ask,  do  you  propose 
to  defend  us?  We  are  not  afraid  of  bullets,  but  treason  has  a  way 
of  taking  people  off,  that  we  do  not  much  relish.  How  do  you 
propose  to  defend  us?  "  Look  at  my  floating  banner,"  he  would 
reply;  "  see  there  the  nullifying  laiv!"  Is  it  your  opinion,  gallant 
commander,  they  would  then  say,  that  if  we  should  be  indicted  for 
treason,  that  same  floating  banner  of  your's  would  make  a  good  plea 
in  bar?  "  South  Carolina  is  a  sovereign  state,"  he  would  reply. 
That  is  true — but  would  the  judge  admit  our  plea?  "These  tariff 
laws,"  he  would  repeat,  "  are  unconstitutional,  palpably,  deliberately, 
dangerously."  That  all  may  be  so;  but  if  the  tribunal  should  not 
happen  to  be  of  that  opinion,  shall  we  swing  for  it  ?  We  are  ready 
to  die  for  our  country,  but  it  is  rather  an  awkward  business,  this  dy- 
ing without  touching  the  ground!  After  all,  that  is  a  sort  of  hemp- 
tax,  worse  than  any  part  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentleman  would  be  in  a  dilemma, 
like  that  of  another  great  general.  He  would  have  a  knot  before 
him  which  he  could  not  untie.  He  must  cut  it  with  his  sword.  He 
must  say  to  his  followers,  defend  yourselves  with  your  bayonets; 
and  this  is  war — civil  war. 

Direct  collision,  therefore,  between  force  and  force,  is  the  una- 
voidable result  of  that  remedy  for  the  revision  of  unconstitutional  laws 
which  the  gentleman  contends  for.  It  must  happen  in  the  very  first 
case  to  which  it  is  applied.  Is  not  this  the  plain  result?  To  resist, 
by  force,  the  execution  of  a  law,  generally,  is  treason.  Can  the 
courts  of  the  United  States  take  notice  of  the  indulgence  of  a  state 
to  commit  treason?  The  common  saying,  that  a  state  cannot  com- 
mit treason  herself,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.     Can  she  authorise 


423 

others  to  do  it?  If  John  Fries  had  produced  an  act  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, annulling  the  law  of  Congress,  would  it  have  helped  his  case? 
Talk  about  it  as  we  will,  these  doctrines  go  the  length  of  revolution. 
They  are  incompatible  with  any  peaceable  administration  of  the 
government.  They  lead  directly  to  disunion  and  civil  commotion; 
and,  therefore,  it  is,  that  at  their  commencement,  when  they  are  first 
found  to  be  maintained  by  respectable  men,  and  in  a  tangible  form, 
I  enter  my  public  protest  against  them  all. 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues,  that  if  this  government  be  the 
sole  judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  powers,  whether  that  right  of 
judging  be  in  Congress,  or  the  Supreme  Court,  it  equally  subverts 
state  sovereignty.  This  the  gentleman  sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  al- 
though he  cannot  perceive  how  the  right  of  judging,  in  this  matter,  if 
left  to  the  exercise  of  state  legislatures,  has  any  tendency  to  subvert 
the  government  of  the  union. — The  gentleman's  opinion  may  be, 
that  the  right  ought  not  to  have  been  lodged  with  the  general  govern- 
ment; he  may  like  better  such  a  constitution,  as  we  should  have 
under  the  right  of  state  interference;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on 
the  plain  matter  of  fact — I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  constitution 
itself — I  ask  him  if  the  power  is  not  found  there — clearly  and  visibly 
found  there?     (Note  3.) 

But,  sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and  what  the  grounds  of  it  ?  Let  it 
be  remembered,  that  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not 
unalterable.  It  is  to  continue  in  its  present  form  no  longer  than  the 
people  who  established  it  shall  choose  to  continue  it.  If  they  shall 
become  convinced  that  they  have  made  an  injudicious  or  inexpedi- 
ent partition  and  distribution  of  power,  between  the  state  govern- 
ments and  the  general  government,  they  can  alter  that  distribution 
at  will. 

If  anything  be  found  in  the  national  constitution,  either  by  origin- 
al provision;  or  subsequent  interpretation,  which  ought  not  to  be  in 
it,  the  people  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  If  any  construction  be 
established,  unacceptable  to  them,  so  as  to  become,  practically,  a 
part  of  the  constitution,  they  will  amend  it,  at  their  own  sovereign 
pleasure,  but  while  the  people  choose  to  maintain  it,  as  it  is;  while 
they  are  satisfied  with  it,  and  refuse  to  change  it;  who  has  given,  or 
who  can  give,  to  the  state  legislatures,  a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by 
interference,  construction  or  otherwise?  Gentlemen  do  not  seem  to 
recollect  that  the  people  have  any  power  to  do  anything  for  them- 
selves; they  imagine  there  is  no  safety  for  them,  any  longer  than 
they  are  under  the  close  guardianship  of  the  state  legislatures.  Sir, 
the  people  have  not  trusted  their  safety,  in  regard  to  the  general 
constitution,  to  these  hands.  They  have  required  other  security, 
and  taken  other  bonds.  They  have  chosen  to  trust  themselves,  first, 
to  the  plain  words  of  the  instrument,  and  to  such  construction  as  the 
government  itself,  in  doubtful  cases,  should  put  on  its  own  powers, 
under  their  oaths  of  office,  and  subject  to  their  responsibility  to  them: 
just  as  the  people  of  a  state  trust  their  own  state  governments  with 
a  similar  power.  Secondly,  they  have  reposed  their  trust  in  the  ef- 
ficacy of  frequent  elections,  and  in  their  own  power  to  remove  their 
own  servants  and  agents,  whenever  they  see  cause.  Thirdly,  they 
have  reposed  trust  in  the  judicial  power,  which,  in  order  that  it  might 


424 

be  trust-worthy,  they  have  made  as  respectable,  as  disinterested, 
and  as  independent  as  was  practicable.  Fourthly,  they  have  seen 
fit  to  rely,  in  case  of  necessity,  or  high  expediency,  on  their  known 
and  admitted  power,  to  alter  or  amend  the  constitution,  peaceably, 
and  quietly,  whenever  experience  shall  point  out  defects  or  imper- 
fections. And,  finally,  the  people  of  the  United  States  have,  at  no 
time,  in  no  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  authorised  any  state  legisla- 
ture to  construe  or  interpret  their  high  instrument  of  government; 
much  less  to  interfere,  by  their  own  power,  to  arrest  its  course  and 
operation. 

If,  sir,  the  people,  in  these  respects,  had  done  otherwise  than  they 
have  done,  their  constitution  could  neither  have  been  preserved,  nor 
would  it  have  been  worth  preserving.  And,  if  its  plain  provisions 
shall  now  be  disregarded,  and  these  new  doctrines  interpolated  in  it, 
it  will  become  as  feeble  and  helpless  a  being,  as  its  enemies,  whether 
early  or  more  recent,  could  possibly  desire.  It  will  exist  in  every 
state,  but  as  a  poor  dependent  on  state  permission.  It  must  borrow 
leave  to  be;  and  will  be,  no  longer  than  state  pleasure,  or  state  dis- 
cretion, sees  fit  to  grant  the  indulgence,  and  to  prolong  its  poor  ex- 
istence. 

But,  sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are  hopes  also.  The  peo- 
ple have  preserved  this,  their  own  chosen  constitution,  for  forty  years, 
and  have  seen  their  happiness,  prosperity,  and  renown,  grow  with 
its  growth,  and  strengthen  with  its  strength.  They  are  now,  gen- 
erally, strongly  attached  to  it. — Overthrown  by  direct  assault,  it 
cannot  be;  evaded,  undermined,  nullified,  it  will  not  be,  if  we, 
and  those  who  shall  succeed  us  here,  as  agents  and  representatives 
of  the  people,  shall  conscientiously  and  vigilantly  discharge  the  two 
great  branches  of  our  public  trust — faithfully  to  preserve,  and  wisely 
to  administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons  of  my  dissent  to  the 
doctrines  which  have  been  advanced  and  maintained.  I  am  con- 
scious of  having  detained  you  and  the  Senate  much  too  long.  I  was 
drawn  into  the  debate,  with  no  previous  deliberation  such  as  is  suited 
to  the  discussion  of  so  grave  and  important  a  subject.  But  it  is  a 
subject  of  which  my  heart  is  full,  and  I  have  not  been  willing  to  sup- 
press the  utterance  of  its  spontaneous  sentiments.  I  cannot,  even 
now,  persuade  myself  to  relinquish  it,  without  expressing,  once  more, 
my  deep  conviction,  that,  since  it  respects  nothing  less  than  the 
union  of  the  states,  it  is  of  most  vital  and  essential  importance  to  the 
public  happiness.  I  profess,  sir,  in  my  career,  hitherto,  to  have 
kept  steadily  in  view  the  prosperity  and  honor  of  the  whole  country, 
and  the  preservation  of  our  federal  union. — It  is  to  that  union  we 
owe  our  safety  at  home,  and  our  consideration  and  dignity  abroad. 
It  is  to  that  union  that  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  whatever  makes 
us  most  proud  of  our  country.  That  union  we  reached  only  by  the 
discipline  of  our  virtues  in  the  severe  school  of  adversity.  It  had 
its  origin  in  the  necessities  of  disordered  finance,  prostrate  com- 
merce, and  ruined  credit.  Under  its  benign  influences,  these  great 
interests  immediately  awoke,  as  from  the  dead,  and  sprang  forth  with 
newness  of  life.  Every  year  of  its  duration  has  teemed  with  fresh 
proofs  of  its  utility  and  its  blessings;  and,  although  our  territory  has 


425 

stretched  out  wider  and  wider,  and  our  population  spread  farther  and 
farther,  they  have  not  outrun  its  protection  or  its  benefits.  It  has 
been  to  us  all  a  copious  fountain  of  national,  social,  and  personal 
happiness.  I  have  not  allowed  myself,  sir,  to  look  beyond  the  union, 
to  see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the  dark  recess  behind.  I  have  not 
coolly  weighed  the  chances  of  preserving  liberty  when  the  bonds 
that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken  asunder.  I  have  not  accus- 
tomed myself  to  hang  over  the  precipice  of  disunion,  to  see  whethei, 
with  my  short  sight,  I  can  fathom  the  depth  of  the  abyss  below;  nor 
could  I  regard  him  as  a  safe  counsellor  in  the  affairs  of  this  govern- 
ment, whose  thoughts  should  be  mainly  bent  on  considering,  not 
how  the  union  should  be  best  preserved,  but  how  tolerable  might 
be  the  condition  of  the  people  when  it  shall  be  broken  up  and  de- 
stroyed. While  the  union  lasts,  we  have  high,  exciting,  gratifying 
prospects  spread  out  before  us,  for  us  and  our  children.  Beyond 
that  I  seek  not  to  penetrate  the  veil.  God  grant  that,  in  my  day, 
at  least,  that  curtain  may  not  rise.  God  grant,  that  on  my  vision 
never  may  be  opened  what  lies  behind. — When  my  eyes  shall  be 
turned  to  behold,  for  the  last  time,  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I  not  see 
him  shining  on  the  broken  and  dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glo- 
rious union;  on  states  dissevered,  discordant,  belligerent;  on  a  land 
rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in  fraternal  blood! — 
Let  their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance,  rather  behold  the  gor- 
geous ensign  of  the  republic,  now  known  and  honored  throughout 
the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced,  its  arms  and  trophies  streaming  in 
their  original  lustre,  not  a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  nor  a  single  star 
obscured — bearing  for  its  motto,  no  such  miserable  interrogatory,  as 
What  is  all  this  worth!  Nor  those  other  words  of  delusion  and  folly, 
Liberty  first,  and  Union  qflenvards — but  everywhere,  spread  all  over 
in  characters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they 
float  over  the  sea  and  over  the  land,  and  in  every  wind  under  the 
whole  heavens,  that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every  true  American 
heart — Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  inseparable ! 


NOTE    l. 


Wednesday,  February  21,  1787. 

Congress  assembled:  Present,  as  before.  The  report  of  a  grand  committee,  consisting  of 
Mr.  Dane,  Mr.  Varnum,  Mr.  S.  M.  Mitchell,  Mr.  Smith,  Mr.  Cadwallader,  Mr.  Irvine, 
Mr.  N.  Mitchell,  Mr.  Forrest,  Mr.  Grayson,  Mr.  Blount,  Mr.  Bull,  and  Mr.  Few;  to  whom 
was  referred  a  letter  of  14th  September,  1786,  from  J.  Dickinson,  written  at  the  request  of 
Commissioners  from  the  states  of  Virginia,  Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  New 
York,  assembled  at  the  city  of  Annapolis,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  report  or  said  com- 
missioners to  the  legislatures  of  the  states  by  whom  they  were  appointed,  being  an  order  of 
the  day,  was  called  up,  and  which  is  contained  in  the  following  resolution;  viz.: — 

"  Congress  having  had  under  consideration  the  letter  of  John  Dickinson,  Esq:,  Chairman 
of  the  commissioners,  who  assembled  at  Annapolis  during  the  last  year;  also,  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  said  commissioners,  and  entirely  coinciding  with  them,  as  to  the  inefficiency  of 
the  Federal  Government,  and  the  necessity  of  devising  such  further  provisions  as  shall  render 
the  same  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  union,  do  strongly  recommend  to  the  different 
legislatures  to  send  forward  delegates  to  meet  the  proposed  Convention,  on  the  second  Mon- 
day, in  May  next,  at  the  city  of  Philadelphia." 

54  MM^ 


426 
NOTE   2. 

Extract  from  Mr.  Calhoun's  Speech,  on  Mr.  Randolph's  motion  to  strike  out  the 
minimum  valuation  on  Cotton  Goods,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  April,  1816. 

"  The  debate,  heretofore,  on  this  subject,  has  been  on  the  degree  of  protection  which  ought 
to  be  afforded  to  our  cotton  and  woollen  manufactures;  all  professing  to  be  friendly  to  those 
infant  establishments,  and  to  be  willing  to  extend  to  them  adequate  encouragement.  The 
present  motion  assumes  a  new  aspect.  It  is  introduced,  professedly,  on  the  ground  that 
manufactures  ought  not  to  receive  any  encouragement ;  and  will,  in  its  operation,  leave  our 
cotton  establishments  exposed  to  the  competition  of  the  cotton  goods  of  the  East  Indies, 
which,  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  sides,  they  are  not  capable  of  meeting  with  success,  with- 
out the  proviso  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  by  the  motion  now  under  discussion.  Till  the 
debate  assumed  this  new  form,  he  determined  to  be  silent ;  participating  as  he  largely  did, 
in  that  general  anxiety  which  is  felt,  after  so  long  and  laborious  a  session,  to  return  to  the 
bosom  of  our  families.  But  on  a  subject  of  such  vital  importance,  touching  as  it  does,  the 
security  and  permanent  prosperity  of  our  country,  he  hoped  that  the  House  would  indulge 
him  in  a  few  observations. 

"  To  give  perfection  to  this  state  of  things,  it  will  be  necessary  to  add,  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble, a  system  of  internal  improvements,  and,  at  least,  such  an  extension  of  our  navy,  as  will 
prevent  the  cutting  off  our  coasting  trade.  The  advantage  of  each  is  so  striking,  as  not  to 
require  illustration,  especially  after  the  experience  of  the  late  war. 

'*  He  firmly  believed  that  the  country  is  prepared,  even  to  maturity,  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  manufactures.  We  have  abundance  of  resources,  and  things  naturally  tend,  at  this 
moment,  in  that  direction.  A  prosperous  commerce  has  poured  an  immense  amount  of 
commercial  capital  into  this  country.  This  capital  has,  till  lately,  found  occupation  in  com- 
merce ;  but  that  state  of  the  world  which  transferred  it  to  this  country,  and  gave  it  active 
employment,  has  passed  away,  never  to  return.  Where  shall  we  now  find  full  employment 
for  our  prodigious  amount  of  tonnage  1  Where  markets  for  the  numerous  and  abundant 
products  of  our  country  !  This  great  body  of  active  capital,  which,  hi' the  moment,  has 
found  sufficient  employment  in  supplying  our  markets,  exhausted  by  the  war,  and  measures 
preceding  it,  must  find  a  new  direction  :  it  will  not  be  idle.  What  channel  can  it  take,  but 
that  of  manufactures  %  This,  if  things  continue  as  they  are,  will  be  its  direction.  It  will 
introduce  an  era  in  our  affairs,  in  many  respects  highly  advantageous,  and  ought  to  be 
countenanced  by  the  government.  Besides,  we  have  already  surmounted  the  greatest  diffi- 
culty that  has  ever  been  found  in  undertakings  of  this  kind.  The  cotton  and  woollen  man- 
ufactures are  not  to  be  introduced — they  are  already  introduced  to  a  great  extent ;  freeing 
us  entirely  from  the  hazards,  and,  in  a  great  measure,  the  sacrifices  experienced  in  giving 
the  capital  of  the  country  a  new  direction.  The  restrictive  measures,  and  the  war,  though 
not  intended  for  that  purpose,  have,  by  the  necessary  operation  of  things,  turned  a  large 
amount  of  capital  to  this  new  branch  of  industry.  He  had  often  heard  it  said,  both  in  and 
out  of  Congress,  that  this  effect,  alone,  would  indemnify  the  country  for  all  its  losses.  So 
high  was  this  tone  of  feeling,  when  the  want  of  these  establishments  was  practically  felt,  that 
he  remembered,  during  the  war,  when  some  question  was  agitated  respecting  the  introduc- 
tion of  foreign  goods,  that  many  then  opposed  it  on  the  ground  of  injuring  our  manufac- 
tures.— He  then  said,  that  war  alone  furnished  sufficient  stimulus,  and  perhaps  too  much,  as 
it  would  make  their  growth  unnaturally  rapid;  but  that,  on  the  return  of  peace,  it  would 
then  be  time  to  show  our  affection  for  them.  He,  at  that  time,  did  not  expect  an  apathy 
and  aversion  to  the  extent  which  is  now  seen.  But  it  will  no  doubt  be  said,  if  they  are  so 
far  established,  and  if  the  situation  of  the  country  is  so  favorable  to  their  growth,  where  is 
the  necessity  of  affording  them  protection!  It  is  to  put  them  beyond  the  reach  of  contin- 
gency. 

"  It  has  been  further  asserted  that  manufactures  are  the  fruitful  cause  of  pauperism  ;  and 
England  has  been  referred  to,  as  furnishing  conclusive  evidence  of  its  truth.  For  his  part,  he 
could  perceive  no  such  tendency  in  them,  but  the  exact  contrary,  as  they  furnished  new  stimu- 
lus and  means  of  subsistence  to  the  laboring  classes  of  the  community.  We  ought  not  to  look 
at  the  cotton  and  woollen  establishments  of  Great  Britain  for  the  prodigious  numbers  of  poor 
with  which  her  population  was  disgraced ;  causes  much  more  efficient  exist.  Her  poor 
laws,  and  statutes  regulating  the  prices  of  labor,  with  taxes,  were  the  real  causes.  But  if 
it  must  be  so ;  if  the  mere  fact  that  England  manufactured  more  than  any  other  country,  ex- 
plained the  cause  of  her  having  more  beggars,  it  is  just  as  reasonable  to  refer  her  courage, 
spirit,  and  all  her  masculine  virtues,  in  which  she  excels  all  other  nations,  with  a  single  ex- 
ception— he  meant  our  own — in  which  we  might,  without  vanity,  challenge  a  preeminence. 
Another  objection  had  been,  which  he  must  acknowledge  was  better  founded,  that  capital 
employed  in  manufacturing  produced  a  greater  dependence  on  the  part  of  the  employed, 
than  in  commerce,  navigation,  or  agriculture.  It  is  certainly  an  evil,  and  to  be  regretted, 
•but  he  did  not  think  it  a  decisive  objection  to  the  system ;  especially  when  it  had  incidental 
political  advantages,  which,  in  his  opinion,  more  than  counterpoised  it.     It  produced  an 


427 

interest  strictly  American,  as  much  so  as  agriculture,  in  which  it  had  the  decided  advan- 
tage of  commerce  or  navigation.  The  country  will,  from  this,  derive  much  advantage. 
Again  :  it  is  calculated  to  bind  together  more  closely  our  widely  spread  republic.  It  will 
greatly  increase  our  mutual  dependence  and  intercourse  ;  and  will,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, excite  an  increased  attention  to  internal  improvements,  a  subject  every  way  so  in- 
timately connected  with  the  ultimate  attainment  of  national  strength,  and  the  perfection  of 
our  political  institutions." 

Extracts  from  the  Speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  April,  1816 — On  the  Direct  Tax. 

"  In  regard  to  the  question,  how  far  manufactures  ought  to  be  fostered,  Mr.  C.  said,  it 
was  the  duty  of  this  country,  as  a  means  of  defence,  to  encourage  the  domestic  industry  of 
the  country,  more  especially  that  part  of  it  which  provides  the  necessary  materials  for  cloth- 
ing and  defence.  Let  us  look  to  the  nature  of  the  war  most  likely  to  occur.  England  is  in 
the  possession  of  the  ocean.  No  man,  however  sanguine,  can  believe  that  we  can  deprive 
her  soon,  of  her  predominance  there.  That  control  deprives  us  of  the  means  of  maintaining 
our  army  and  navy  cheaply  clad.  The  question  relating  to  manufactures  must  not  depend 
on  the  abstract  principle,  that  industry  left  to  pursue  its  own  course,  will  find  in  its  own  in- 
terest all  the  encouragement  that  is  necessary.  I  lay  the  claims  of  the  manufacturers  en- 
tirely out  of  view,  said  Mr.  C. ;  but,  on  general  principles,  without  regard  to  their  interest, 
a  certain  encouragement  should  be  extended,  at  least  to  our  woollen  and  cotton  manufac- 
tures. 

"  This  nation,"  Mr.  C.  said,  "  was  rapidly  changing  the  character  of  its  industry. — 
When  a  nation  is  agricultural,  depending  for  supply  on  foreign  markets,  its  people  may  be 
taxed  through  its  imports,  almost  to  the  amount  of  its  capacity.  The  nation  was,  howev- 
er, rapidly  becoming,  to  a  considerable  extent,  a  manufacturing  nation." 

To  the  quotations  from  the  speeches  and  proceedings  of  the  Representatives  of  South 
Carolina,  in  Congress,  during  Mr.  Monroe's  administration,  may  be  added  the  following 
extract  from  Mr.  Calhoun's  report  on  roads  and  canals,  submitted  to  Congress  on  7th  of 
January,  1819,  from  the  Department  of  War  : 

**  A  judicious  system  of  roads  and  canals,  constructed  for  the  convenience  of  commerce, 
and  the  transportation  of  the  mail  only,  without  any  reference  to  military  operations,  is  it- 
self among  die  most  efficient  means  for  the  *  more  complete  defence  of  the  United  States.* 
Without  adverting  to  the  fact  that  the  roads  and  canals  which  such  a  system  would  require, 
are,  with  few  exceptions,  precisely  those  which  would  be  required  for  the  operations  of  war; 
such  a  system,  by  consolidating  our  union,  increasing  our  wealth  and  fiscal  capacity,  would 
add  greatly  to  our  resources  in  war.  It  is  in  a  state  of  war  when  a  nation  is  compelled  to 
put  all  its  resources,  in  men,  money,  skill,  and  devotion  to  country,  into  requisition,  that  its 
government  realizes  in  its  security,  the  beneficial  effects  from  a  people  made  prosperous  and 
happy  by  a  wise  direction  of  its  resources  in  peace. 

"Should  Congress  think  proper  to  commence  a  system  of  roads  and  canals,  for  'the  more 
complete  defence  of  the  United  States,'  the  disbursements  of  the  sum  appropriated  for  the 
purpose  might  be  made  by  the  Department  of  War,  under  the  direction  of  the  President. 
Where  incorporate  companies  are  already  formed,  or  the  road  or  canal  commenced,  under 
the  superintendence  of  a  state,  it  perhaps  would  be  advisable  to  direct  a  subscription  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  might  be  thought  proper." 

NOTE    3. 

The  following  resolutions  of  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  bear  so  pertinently  and  so  strongly 
on  this  point  of  the  debate,  that  they  are  thought  worthy  of  being  inserted  in  a  note,  espe- 
cially as  other  resolutions  of  the  same  body  are  referred  to  in  the  discussion.  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  these  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  in  each  House. 

VIRGINIA    LEGISLATURE. 

Extract  from  the  Message  of  Gov.  Tyler,  of  Virginia,  Dec.  4,  1809. 

"A  proposition  from  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  is  herewith  submitted,  with  Governor  Sny- 
der's letter  accompanying  the  same,  in  which  is  suggested  the  propriety  of  amending  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  so  as  to  prevent  collision  between  the  government  of  the  union 
and  the  state  governments." 

House  of  Delegates,  Friday,  December  15,  1809 

On  motion,  Ordered,  That  so  much  of  the  Governor's  communication  as  relates  to  the  com- 
munication from  the  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  subject  of  an  amendment,  proposed  by 
the  legislature  of  that  state,  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  be  referred  to  Messrs. 
Peyton,  Otey,  Cabell,  Walker,  Madison,  Holt,  Newton,  Parker,  Stevenson,  Randolph  [of 
Amelia,]  Cocke,  Wyatt,  and  Ritchie. — Page  25  of  the  Journal. 


428 

Thursday,  January  11,  1810, 

Mr.  Peyton,  from  the  committee  to  whom  was  referred  that  part  of  the  governor's  com- 
munication which  relates  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  state  of  Pennsylvania,  to  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  made  the  following  report : 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  communication  of  the  governor  of  Pennsylvania, 
covering  certain  resolutions  of  the  legislature  of  that  state,  proposing  an  amendment  of  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  the  appointment  of  an  impartial  tribunal  to  decide  dis- 
putes between  the  States  and  Federal  Judiciary,  have  had  the  same  under  their  consideration, 
and  are  of  opinion,  that  a  tribunal  is  already  provided  by  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  to  wit :  the  Supreme  Court,  more  eminently  qualified,  from  their  habits  and  duties, 
from  the  mode  of  their  selection,  and  from  the  tenure  of  their  offices,  to  decide  the  disputes 
aforesaid,  in  an  enlightened  and  impartial  manner,  than  any  other  tribunal  which  could  be 
created. 

The  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  selected  from  those  in  the  United  States  who  are 
most  celebrated  for  virtue  and  legal  learning,  not  at  the  will  of  a  single  individual,  but  by 
the  concurrent  wishes  of  the  President  and  Senate  of  the  United  States;  they  will,  therefore, 
have  no  local  prejudices  and  partialities.  The  duties  they  have  to  perform,  lead  them,  ne- 
cessarily, to  the  most  enlarged  and  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Fed- 
eral and  State  Courts  together,  and  with  the  admirable  symmetry  of  our  government.  The 
tenure  of  their  offices  enables  them  to  pronounce  the  sound  and  correct  opinions  they  may 
have  formed,  without  fear,  favor,  or  partiality. 

The  amendment  to  the  constitution  proposed  by  Pennsylvania,  seems  to  be  founded  upon 
the  idea  that  the  Federal  Judiciary  will,  from  a  lust  of  power,  enlarge  their  jurisdiction,  to 
the  total  annihilation  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  courts;  that  they  will  exercise  their  will, 
instead  of  the  law  and  the  constitution. 

This  argument,  if  it  proves  anything,  would  operate  more  strongly  against  the  tribunal 
proposed  to  be  created,  which  promised  so  little,  than  against  the  Supreme  Court,  which,  for 
the  reasons  given  before,  have  everything  connected  with  their  appointment  calculated  to 
ensure  confidence.  What  security  have  we,  were  the  proposed  amendment  adopted,  that 
this  tribunal  would  not  substitute  their  will  and  their  pleasure  in  place  of  the  law  1  The 
Judiciary  are  the  weakest  of  the  three  departments  of  government,  and  least  dangerous  to  the 
political  rights  of  the  constitution;  they  hold  neither  the  purse  nor  the  sword;  and,  even  to 
enforce  their  own  judgments  and  decisions,  must  ultimately  depend  upon  the  Executive  arm. 
Should  the  Federal  Judiciary,  however,  unmindful  of  their  weakness,  unmindful  of  the  duty 
which  they  owe  to  themselves  and  their  country,  become  corrupt,  and  transcend  the  limits 
of  their  jurisdiction,  would  the  proposed  amendment  oppose  even  a  probable  barrier  in  such 
an  improbable  state  of  things'? 

The  creation  of  a  tribunal,  such  as  is  proposed  by  Pennsylvania,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to 
form  an  idea  of  it,  from  the  description  given  in  die  resolutions  of  the  legislature  of  that  state, 
would,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  tend  rather  to  invite,  than  to  prevent,  collisions 
between  the  Federal  and  State  Courts.  It  might  also  become,  in  process  of  time,  a  serious 
and  dangerous  embarrassment  to  the  operations  of  the  general  government. 

Resolved,  therefore,  That  the  legislature  of  this  state  do  disapprove  of  the  amendmen 
to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  proposed  by  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania. 

Resolved,  also,  That  his  excellency  the  governor,  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  requested  to 
transmit  forthwith,  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  preamble  and  resolutions,  to  each  of  the  sena- 
tors and  representatives  of  this  state  in  Congress,  and  to  the  executive  of  the  several  states 
in  the  union,  with  a  request  that  the  same  be  laid  before  the  legislatures  thereof. 

The  said  resolutions  being  read  a  second  time,  were,  on  motion,  ordered  to  be  referred 
to  a  committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Tuesday,  January  23,  1810. 

The  House,  according  to  the  order  of  the  day,  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  state  of  die  Commonwealth,  and  after  sometime  spent  therein,  Mr. 
Speaker  resumed  die  chair,  and  Mr.  Stanard,  of  Spottsylvania  reported  that  the  committee 
had,  according  to  order,  had  under  consideration  die  preamble  and  resolutions  of  the  select 
committee,  to  whom  was  referred  that  part  of  die  governor's  communication  which  relates  to 
the  amendment  proposed  to  die  constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  the  legislature  of  Penn- 
sylvania, had  gone  through  with  the  same,  and  directed  him  to  report  them  to  the  House 
without  amendment;  which  he  handed  in  at  the  clerk's  table. 

And  the  question  being  put  on  agreeing  to  the  said  preamble  and  resolutions,  they  were 
agreed  to  by  die  House  unanimously. 

Ordered,  That  the  clerk  carry  the  said  preamble  and  resolutions  to  the  Senate,  and  de- 
sire their  concurrence. 

In  Senate — Wednesday,  January  24,  1810. 
The  preamble  and  resolutions  on  the  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
proposed  by  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  by  the  appointment  of  an  impartial  tribunal  to 


429 

decide  disputes  between  the  State  and  Federal  Judiciary,  being  also  delivered  in  and  twice 
read,  on  motion,  was  ordered  to  be  committed  to  Messrs.  Nelson,  Currie,  Campbell,  Up- 
shur, and  Wolfe. 

Friday,  January  26. 

Mr.  Nelson  reported,  from  the  committee  to  whom  was  committed  the  preamble  and  reso- 
lutions on  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  &c.  &c.  that  the 
committee  had,  according  to  order,  taken  the  said  preamble,  &c.  under  their  consideration, 
and  directed  him  to  report  them  without  any  amendment. 

And  on  the  question  being  put  thereupon  the  same  was  agreed  to  unanimously. 


MR.  WEBSTER'S    LAST  REMARKS. 

Mr.  Hayne  having  rejoined  to  Mr.  Webster,  especially  on  the  constitutional  ques- 
tion— 
Mr.  Webster  rose,  and,  in  conclusion,  said  : 

A  few  words,  Mr.  President,  on  this  constitutional  argument, 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  labored  to  reconstruct. 

His  argument  consists  of  two  propositions,  and  an  inference. 
His  propositions  are — 

1.  That  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  States. 

2.  That  a  compact  between  two,  with  authority  reserved  to  one 
to  interpret  its  terms,  would  be  a  surrender  to  that  one,  of  all  pow- 
er whatever. 

3.  Therefore,  (such  is  his  inference)  the  general  government 
does  not  possess  the  authority  to  construe  its  own  powers. 

Now,  sir,  who  does  not  see,  without  the  aid  of  exposition  or 
detection,  the  utter  confusion  of  ideas,  involved  in  this,  so  elabo- 
rate and  systematic  argument. 

The  constitution,  it  is  said,  is  a  compact  behceen  states;  the  states, 
then,  and  the  states  only,  are  parties  to  the  compact.  How  comes 
the  general  government  itself  a  party?  Upon  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman's hypothesis,  the  general  government  is  the  result  of  the 
compact,  the  creature  of  the  compact,  not  one  of  the  parties  to  it. 
Yet  the  argument,  as  the  gentleman  has  now  stated  it,  makes  the 
government  itself  one  of  its  own  creators.  It  makes  it  a  party  to 
that  compact,  to  which  it  owes  its  own  existence. 

For  the  purpose  of  erecting  the  constitution  on  the  basis  of  a 
compact,  the  gentleman  considers  the  states  as  parties  to  that  com- 
pact; but  as  soon  as  his  compact  is  made,  then  he  chooses  to  con- 
sider the  general  government,  which  is  the  offspring  of  that  com- 
pact, not  its  offspring,  but  one  of  its  parties;  and  so,  being  a  party, 
has  not  the  power  of  judging  on  the  terms  of  compact.  Pray,  sir, 
in  what  school  is  such  reasoning  as  this  taught  ? 

If  the  whole  of  the  gentleman's  main  proposition  were  conceded 
to  him,  that  is  to  say — if  I  admit  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that 
the  constitution  is  a  compact  between  states,  the  inferences,  which 
he  draws  from  that  proposition,  are  warranted  by  no  just  reason. 
Because,  if  the  constitution  be  a  compact  between  states,  still,  that 
constitution,  or  that  compact,  has  established  a  government,  with 


430 

certain  powers;  and  whether  it  be  one  of  those  powers,  that  it  shall 
construe  and  interpret  for  itself,  the  terms  of  the  compact,  in  doubt- 
ful cases,  is  a  question  which  can  only  be  decided  by  looking  to  the 
compact,  and  inquiring  what  provisions  it  contains  on  this  point. 
Without  any  inconsistency  with  natural  reason,  the  government, 
even  thus  created,  might  be  trusted  with  this  power  of  construction. 
The  extent  of  its  powers,  therefore,  must  still  be  sought  for  in  the 
instrument  itself. 

If  the  old  confederation  had  contained  a  clause,  declaring  that 
resolutions  of  the  Congress  should  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
any  state  law  or  constitution  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  and 
that  a  committee  of  Congress,  or  any  other  body  created  by  it, 
should  possess  judicial  powers,  extending  to  all  cases  arising  under 
resolutions  of  Congress,  then  the  power  of  ultimate  decision  would 
have  been  vested  in  Congress,  under  the  confederation,  although 
that  confederation  was  a  compact  between  states;  and,  for  this  plain 
reason:  that  it  would  have  been  competent  to  the  states,  who  alone 
were  parties  to  the  compact,  to  agree,  who  should  decide,  in  cases 
of  dispute  arising  on  the  construction  of  the  compact. 

For  the  same  reason,  sir,  if  I  were  now  to  concede  to  the  gentle- 
man his  principal  propositions,  viz.  that  the  constitution  is  a  compact 
between  states,  the  question  would  still  be,  what  provision  is  made, 
in  this  compact,  to  settle  points  of  disputed  construction,  or  contest- 
ed power,  that  shall  come  into  controversy  ?  and  this  question  would 
still  be  answered,  and  conclusively  answered,  by  the  constitution  it- 
self. While  the  gentleman  is  contending  against  construction,  he 
himself  is  setting  up  the  most  loose  and  dangerous  construction. 
The  constitution  declares,  that  the  laws  of  Congress  passed  in  pur- 
suance of  the  constitution  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  No  con- 
struction is  necessary  here.  It  declares,  also,  with  equal  plainness 
and  precision,  that  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  extend 
to  every  case  arising  under  the  laws  of  Congress.  This  needs  no  con- 
struction. Here  is  a  law,  then,  which  is  declared  to  be  supreme; 
and  here  is  a  power  established,  which  is  to  interpret  that  law.  Now, 
sir,  how  has  the  gentleman  met  this?  Suppose  the  constitution  to 
be  a  compact,  yet  here  are  its  terms,  and  how  does  the  gentleman 
get  rid  of  them?  He  cannot  argue  the  seal  off  the  bond,  nor  the 
words  out  of  the  instrument.  Here  they  are — what  answer  does  he 
give  to  them?  None  in  the  world,  sir,  except,  that  the  effect  of  this 
would  be  to  place  the  states  in  a  condition  of  inferiority;  and  be- 
cause it  results,  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  there  being  no 
superior,  that  the  parties  must  be  their  own  judges!  Thus  closely 
and  cogently  does  the  honorable  gentleman  reason  on  the  words  of 
the  constitution.  The  gentleman  says,  if  there  be  such  a  power  of 
final  decision  in  the  general  government,  he  asks  for  the  grant  of 
that  power.  Well,  sir,  I  show  him  the  grant — I  turn  him  to  the 
very  words — I  show  him  that  the  laws  of  Congress  are  made  supreme; 
and  that  the  Judicial  power  extends,  by  express  words,  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  these  laws.  Instead  of  answering  this,  he  retreats  into 
the  general  reflection,  that  it  must  result  from  the  nature  of  things,  that 
the  states,  being  parties,  must  judge  for  themselves. 


431 

I  have  admitted,  that,  if  the  constitution  were  to  be  considered  as 
the  creature  of  the  state  governments,  it  might  be  modified,  inter- 
preted, or  construed,  according  to  their  pleasure.  But,  even  in  that 
case,  it  would  be  necessary  that  they  should  agree.  One,  alone, 
could  not  interpret  it  conclusively;  one,  alone,  could  not  construe  it; 
one,  alone,  could  not  modify  it.  Yet  the  gentleman's  doctrine  is, 
that  Carolina,  alone,  may  construe  and  interpret  that  compact  which 
equally  binds   all,  and   gives  equal  rights  to  all. 

So  then,  sir,  even  supposing  the  constitution  to  be  a  compact 
between  the  states,  the  gentleman's  doctrine,  nevertheless,  is  not 
maintainable;  because,  first,  the  general  government  is  not  a  party 
to  that  compact,  but  a  government  established  by  it,  and  vested  by  it 
with  the  powers  of  trying  and  deciding  doubtful  questions;  and, 
secondly,  because,  if  the  constitution  be  regarded  as  a  compact, 
not  one  state  only,  but  all  the  states,  are  parties  to  that  compact, 
and  one  can  have  no  right  to  fix  upon  it  her  own  peculiar  con- 
struction. 

So  much,  sir,  for  the  argument,  even  if  the  premises  of  the  gen- 
tleman were  granted,  or  could  be  proved.  But,  sir,  the  gentleman 
has  failed  to  maintain  his  leading  proposition.  He  has  not  shown,  it 
cannot  be  shown,  that  the  constitution  is  a  compact  between  state 
governments.  The  constitution  itself,  in  its  very  front,  refutes  that 
idea:  it  declares  that  it  is  ordained  and  established  by  the  people  of 
the  United  States.  So  far  from  saying  that  it  is  established  by  the 
governments  of  the  several  states,  it  does  not  even  say  that  it  is 
established  by  the  people  of  the  several  states;  but  it  pronounces  that 
it  is  established  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  the  aggregate. 
The  gentleman  says,  it  must  mean  no  more  than  the  people  of  the 
several  states.  Doubtless,  the  people  of  the  several  states,  taken 
collectively,  constitute  the  people  of  the  United  States;  but  it  is  in 
this,  their  collective  capacity,  it  is  as  all  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  that  they  establish  the  constitution.  So  they  declare;  and 
words  cannot  be  plainer  than  the  words  used. 

When  the  gentleman  says  the  constitution  is  a  compact  between 
the  states,  he  uses  language  exactly  applicable  to  the  old  confede- 
ration. He  speaks  as  if  he  were  in  Congress  before  1789.  He 
describes  fully  that  old  state  of  things  then  existing.  The  confede- 
ration was,  in  strictness,  a  compact;  the  states,  as  states,  were  parties 
to  it.  We  had  no  other  general  government.  But  that  was  found 
insufficient,  and  inadequate  to  the  public  exigencies.  The  people 
were  not  satisfied  with  it,  and  undertook  to  establish  a  better.  They 
undertook  to  form  a  general  government,  which  should  stand  on  a 
new  basis — not  a  confederacy,  not  a  league,  not  a  compact  between 
states,  but  a  constitution;  a  popular  government,  founded  in  popular 
election,  directly  responsible  to  the  people  themselves,  and  divided 
into  branches,  with  prescribed  limits  of  power,  and  prescribed  duties. 
They  ordained  such  a  government;  they  gave  it  the  name  of  a 
constitution,  and  therein  they  established  a  distribution  of  powers 
between  this,  their  general  government,  and  their  several  state 
governments.  When  they  shall  become  dissatisfied  with  this 
distribution,  they  can  alter  it.     Their  own  power  over  their  own 


<V7^ 

432 

instrument  remains.  But  until  they  shall  alter  it,  it  must  stand  as 
their  will,  and  is  equally  binding  on  the  general  government  and  on 
the  states. 

The  gentleman,  sir,  finds  analogy  where  I  see  none.  He  likens 
it  to  the  case  of  a  treaty,  in  which,  there  being  no  common  superior, 
each  party  must  interpret  for  itself,  under  its  own  obligation  of  good 
faith.  But  this  is  not  a  treaty,  but  a  constitution  of  government, 
with  powers  to  execute  itself,  and  fulfil  its  duties. 

I  admit,  sir,  that  this  government  is  a  government  of  checks  and 
balances;  that  is,  the  House  of  Representatives  is  a  check  on  the 
Senate,  and  the  Senate  is  a  check  on  the  House,  and  the  President 
a  check  on  both.  But  I  cannot  comprehend  him,  or,  if  I  do,  I 
totally  differ  from  him,  when  he  applies  the  notion  of  checks  and 
balances  to  the  interference  of  different  governments.  He  argues, 
that  if  we  transgress,  each  state,  as  a  state,  has  a  right  to  check  us. 
Does  he  admit  the  converse  of  the  proposition,  that  we  have  a  right 
to  check  the  states?  The  gentleman's  doctrines  would  give  us  a 
strange  jumble  of  authorities  and  powers,  instead  of  governments 
of  separate  and  defined  powers.  It  is  the  part  of  wisdom,  I  think, 
to  avoid  this;  and  to  keep  the  general  government  and  the  state 
governments,  each  in  its  proper  sphere,  avoiding,  as  carefully  as 
possible,  every  kind  of  interference. 

Finally,  sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  the  states  will 
only  interfere,  by  their  power,  to  preserve  the  constitution.  They 
will  not  destroy  it — they  will  not  impair  it — they  will  only  save, 
they  will  only  preserve,  they  will  only  strengthen  it!  Ah!  sir,  this 
is  but  the  old  story.  All  regulated  governments,  all  free  govern- 
ments, have  been  broken  up  by  similar  disinterested  and  well  dis- 
posed interference!  It  is  the  common  pretence.  But  I  take  leave 
of  the  subject. 


REMARKS 


IN  THE  SENATE   OF   THE   UNITED  STATES,  ON    THE  APPLICATION 
FOR  THE  ERECTION  OF  A  BREAKWATER  AT  NANTUCKET.    1328. 


On  the  8th  of  March,  1828,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  a  Bill  entitled  "  An  Act 
making  appropriations  for  Internal  Improvements." — This  Bill  contained  appropriations  for 
sundry  objects ;  among  which  were  the  further  continuance  of  the  Cumberland  road,  the 
removal  of  obstructions  to  navigation,  and  the  erection  of  piers  at  the  mouths  of  several  riv- 
ers running  into  Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Ontario,  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the 
Kennebec  River,  below  Hallowell,  and  for  a  Lighthouse,  on  the  Brandywine  shore,  in  the 
Bay  of  Delaware. 

There  was  also  in  the  Bill  the  following  clause.  "  For  defraying  the  expenses  inciden 
tal  to  making  examinations  and  surveys,  under  the  act  of  the  thirtieth  of  April  eighteen 
hundred  and  twenty-four,  thirty  thousand  dollars." — When  the  Bill  came  to  the  Sen- 
ate, it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Finance,  who  reported,  among  other  amendments, 
the  following. — "  Strike  out,  after  the  word  expenses,  in  the  above  clause,  all  that  follows, 
and  insert  other  words,  so  as  that  the  whole  clause,  when  amended  as  proposed,  should 
read  thus — "  For  defraying  the  expenses  of  completing  examinations  and  surveys,  already 
commenced  and  unfinished,  under  the  act  of  the  thirtieth  of  April  1824,  thirty  thousand  dol- 
lars, provided,  that  no  part  of  this  sum  shall  be  expended  upon  any  other  examinations  and 
surveys." 

On  this  amendment  to  the  bill  of  the  House,  the  Senate  in  committee  of  the  whole  was 
equally  divided,  and  the  amendment  was  carried,  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice  President. 
The  House  disagreed  to  the  amendment  and  returned  the  bill  to  the  Senate,  where  it  was 
again  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Finance,  and  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  (Mr.  Smith 
of  Maryland,)  on  Friday,  the  second  of  May,  again  reported  the  bill  and  amendment,  with 
the  following  remarks  and  motion  : 

"  In  reporting  to  the  Senate  the  disagreement  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  the  third 
and  fifth  amendments  of  the  Senate  to  the  bill  making  appropriations  for  internal  improve- 
ments, and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  I  desire  to  state — 

"  That  the  opinion  of  the  committee  on  the  propriety  of  the  amendments,  remains  unchanged  ; 
but  as  the  item  to  which  the  third  and  principal  amendment  relates  is  incorporated  in  the 
bill  providing  for  other  objects,  deemed  of  immediate  urgency  and  great  importance  to  the 
public  service,  which  might  be  materially  prejudiced,  and  finally  defeated  at  this  late  period 
of  the  session,  by  adhering  to  the  amendment,  and  prolonging  the  disagreement  between  the 
two  Houses :  they  do  not  desire  to  incur  those  risks,  or  to  produce  the  delay  incident  to  a 
renewed  and  protracted  discussion. 

"  From  these  considerations,  I  report  the  bill  to  the  Senate ;  and  now  move  that  the  Senate 
recede  from  their  amendments,  and  concur  in  the  disagreement  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives." 

On  this  motion  to  recede  from  the  amendment,  discussion  arose,  in  which  Mr.  Webster 
took  part. 

55  NN 


434 

The  Act  of  April  30th,  1824,  referred  to  in  tlie  bill,  and  in  the  amendment,  is  in  the  fol- 
lowing words. 

"An  Act  to  procure  the  necessary  Surveys,  Plane,  and  Estimates,  upon  the  subject  of 
Roads  and  Canals. 

"  Sect.  1.  Be  it  enacted,  &c.  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  authorised 
to  cause  the  neceesary  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates,  to  be  made,  of  the  routes  of  such  Roads 
and  Canals  as  he  may  deem  of  national  importance,  in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of 
view,  or  necessary  for  the  transportation  of  the  Mail ;  designating,  in  the  case  of  each  canal, 
what  parts  may  be  made  capable  of  sloop  navigation.  The  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates, 
for  each,  when  completed,  to  be  laid  before  Congress. 

"  Sect.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that,  to  cany  into  effect  the  objects  of  this  act,  the 
President  be,  and  he  is  hereby  authorised,  to  employ  two  or  more  skilful  civil  engineers, 
and  such  officers  of  the  corps  of  engineers,  or  who  may  be  detailed  to  do  duty  with  that  corps, 
as  he  maythink  proper;  and  the  sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby 
appropriated,  to  be  paid  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated." 

In  the  following  years,  1825,  1826,  and  1827,  appropriations  had  been  made,  for  the  fur- 
ther execution  of  the  powers  conferred  on  the  President  by  this  law. 

At  the  session  of  1827-28,  a  petition  was  pending  before  both  Houses  of  Congress  for 
the  erection  of  a  Breakwater  at  Nantucket,  in  regard  to  which  a  survey  had  been  made,  by 
the  Engineer  Department,  the  preceding  summer. 

The  amendment,  proposed  by  the  Senate  to  the  bill  from  the  House,  was  regarded  by  the 
friends  of  internal  improvement,  as  hostile  to  that  whole  system.  For  this  reason,  and  on 
this  ground,  as  well  as  others,  it  was  opposed.  Mr.  Webster's  speech,  delivered  on  this 
occasion,  has  never  been  printed,  as  far  as  the  publishers  of  this  volume  can  learn.  They 
have  obtained,  however,  the  Reporter's  notes,  from  which  the  following  sketch  is  made. 
They  have  felt  the  more  desirous  of  adding  this  speech,  though  in  a  very  imperfect  form,  to 
their  collection,  from  the  interesting  facts  which  it  affords,  relative  to  the  Nantucket  whale 
fishery ;  for  which,  we  are  requested  to  say,  die  author  was  chiefly  indebted  to  the  Honora- 
ble Mr.  Burnell,  of  Nantucket,  a  member  of  the  Senate  of  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  Webster  said,  the  true  question  before  the  Senate,  was,  as 
he  had  stated  before,  whether  the  law  of  April  1 824  should  be  effectu- 
ally repealed,  and  all  further  proceedings  under  it  stayed.  That  law 
would  not  execute  itself.  Without  appropriations  to  carry  on  its  pur- 
pose and  effect,  it  must  be  a  dead  letter.  It  is  now  proposed  to  de- 
clare, that  nothing  shall  be  appropriated  to  any  surveys,  except  those 
already  begun.  In  other  words,  that  the  whole  system  of  internal 
improvements  shall  be  arrested,  and  stop  where  it  is.  I  do  not, 
Mr.  President,  say  that  this  is  an  unfair  object.  Those  who  deny 
to  the  government  the  power  of  making  internal  improvements,  and 
we  know  there  are  such,  naturally  wish  to  restrain  the  exercise  of  the 
power,  and  prevent  it  altogether.  On  this  question,  public  men 
divide;  and  the  general  opinion  of  the  community  must  ultimately 
settle  it,  one  way  or  the  other. 

The  law  of  1824  was  passed  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  particular- 
izing, by  law,  every  survey  which  should  be  made  by  the  authority 
of  the  government.  It  referred  the  subject  of  these  preliminary 
surveys,  within  certain  defined  limits  and  restrictions,  to  the  exe- 
cutive. From  that  time  the  work  has  gone  on,  in  that  manner,  un- 
der annual  appropriations.  This  amendment  is  an  act  of  hostility 
aimed  at  the  whole  system.  It  goes  on  grounds  which  lie  against 
all  such  measures,  under  all  circumstances.  It  was  not  his  intention, 
Mr.  Webster  said,  to  go  far  into  the  general  subject   at  present. 


435 

It  was  well  known  that  the  idea  of  aiding  in  works  of  internal  im- 
provement,'was  seriously  brought  forward  in  Mr.  Gallatin's  Report 
in  1809.  Events,  occurring  in  the  five  or  six  following  years,  with- 
drew attention  from  the  subject,  but  it  was  revived,  with  new  zeal, 
and  under  new  auspices,  after  the  peace. 

He  had  himself,  Mr.  Webster  said,  been  in  favor  of  exercising 
the  power,  from  the  first  time  he  came  into  Congress,  and  his  opin- 
ion was  not  altered.  He  saw  evidently  now  existing,  a  spirit  of 
hostility  to  these  undertakings  by  government,  and  as  he  had  already 
said,  it  must  be  ultimately  decided  by  the  people  themselves. 

He  should  not  have  troubled  the  Senate  on  this  occasion,  but 
for  a  single  occurrence.  The  honorable  member  from  South  Caro- 
lina, (Mr.  Smith,)  in  opposing  the  whole  system,  had  commented 
on  some  of  the  plans  and  projects,  for  which  the  aid  of  government 
was  now  solicited.  Among  others,  he  alluded  to  the  improvements 
contemplated  near  Nantucket,  by  a  Breakwater.  The  honorable 
member  seemed  to  think  very  lightly  of  this,  both  with  regard  to 
its  practicability  and  its  importance.  He  (Mr.  W.)  professed  to 
know  no  more  of  the  former  than  the  surveys  had  taught  him,  but 
he  was  well  informed  by  competent  judges,  that  the  latter  was  not 
likely  to  be  overrated.  A  vast  commerce  passes  through  the  sound 
between  the  Island  of  Nantucket  and  the  continent.  If  an  artifi- 
cial harbour  be  necessary  for  the  accommodation  and  safety  of  this 
commerce,  the  estimated  expense  is  not  out  of  proportion  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  object.  The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  had 
said,  that  near  two  millions  of  dollars  had  been  expended  on  the 
Cumberland  road.  He  (Mr  W.)  did  not  mean  to  underrate  the  val- 
ue of  that  great  line  of  communication  and  transportation,  but  if  we 
look  to  the  amount  of  transportation  through  the  sound,  we  shall  find 
it  very  far  surpassing  that  of  the  road.  A  vast  coasting  trade  plies 
through  this  sound,  which  is  a  sort  of  defile,  a  narrow  passage,  ob- 
structed with  rocks  and  shoals,  and  deficient  in  convenient  and  safe 
harbours.  The  anchoring  of  a  floating  light  vessel  in  the  sound, 
had  furnished  the  means  of  ascertaining  the  number  of  vessels 
which  passed  through  it  annually;  and  perhaps  some  members 
will  be  surprised  to  hear,  that  that  number  does  not  fall  short  of 
16,000.  Nantucket  itself,  said  Mr.  W.  is  a  very  striking  and  pecu- 
liar portion  of  the  national  interest.  There  is  a  population  of  eight  or 
nine  thousand  persons,  living  here  in  the  sea,  adding  largely  every 
year  to  the  amount  of  national  wealth  by  the  boldest  and  most  perse- 
vering industry.  They  have  been  twice  reduced  to  the  very  verge 
of  ruin,  and  yet  have  recovered  by  new  efforts  and  untiring  toil.  In 
1775,  when  Mr.  Burke,  in  his  speech  in  the  house  of  commons,  on 
the  resolutions  for  conciliation  with  the  American  Colonies,  alluded, 
in  such  terms  of  eulogy,  to  the  Nantucket  whale  fishery,  there  were 
150  ships  engaged  in  that  trade,  and  spread  over  every  quarter  of 
the  ocean.  There  were  employed  upwards  of  two  thousand  men. 
They  were  even  then  "  found  among  the  tumbling  mountains  of 
ice,  and  penetrating  into  the  deepest  frozen  recesses  of  Hudson's 
Bay  and  Davis's  Straits.  Again,  they  pierced  into  the  opposite  re- 
gion of  polar  cold,  and  were  at  the  antipodes  engaged  under  the 
frozen  serpent  of  the  South.     Places  which  seemed  too  remote,  and 


436 

romantic  objects,  for  the  grasp  of  national  ambition,  were  but  stages 
and  resting  places  in  the  progress  of  their  victorious  industry. 
Whilst  some  of  them  drew  the  line  and  struck  the  harpoon  on  the 
coast  of  Africa,  others  run  the  longitude  and  pursued  their  gigantic 
game  along  the  coast  of  Brazil.  No  sea  but  what  was  vexed  by 
their  fisheries.     No  climate  that  was  not  witness  to  their  toils."* 

At  the  end  of  the  war,  of  the  150  ships  but  15  remained,  the  rest 
had  been  taken  by  the  enemy.  At  present,  I  believe,  they  have  65 
or  75  ships  engaged  in  the  whale  fishery,  with  an  aggregate  of  thir- 
ty thousand  tons  of  tonnage,  and  of  the  value  of  two  millions  of  dol- 
lars. Their  history  is  interesting.  An  intelligent  friend,  a  citizen  of 
the  Island,  has  furnished  me  with  a  note  of  the  progress  of  this  branch 
of  industry,  which  is  in  the  highest  degree  honorable  to  the  spirit  of 
enterprise  which  has  animated  the  people  of  that  place  for  more 
than  a  century  and  a  half.  They  are  well  entitled  to  public  encour- 
agement. Their  harbour  is  bad,  and  in  addition  to  the  accommoda- 
tion of  the  coasting  trade,  and  other  interests,  a  breakwater  would 
be  of  the  greatest  utility  to  them.  I  hope  their  application  will  not 
be  prejudged.  Gentlemen  will  find  the  subject  to  be  one  full  of  in- 
terest and  importance;  and  as  my  colleague  intends,  ere  long,  to 
bring  it  to  the  consideration  of  the  Senate,  I  hope  it  may  have  a 
fair  hearing. 


NOTE. 


The  Island  of  Nantucket  was  settled  from  the  County  of  Essex  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, about  1660.  Thirty  years  afterwards,  the  whale  fishery  com- 
menced, and  was,  at  first,  carried  on  by  boats  from  the  shore.  This  mode 
of  conducting  the  business  reached  its  height  in  1726,  in  which  year  eighty 
or  ninety  whales  were  brought  to  the  shore,  and  of  these,  thirteen  are  said 
to  have  been  taken  in  one  day.  Within  thirty  or  forty  years  after  this,  the 
boat  fishing  fell  off  as  the  whales  drew  off  from  the  shore,  and  vessels 
were  required  to  pursue  them.  Some  small  sloops,  of  thirty  or  forty  tons 
each,  had  been  employed  as  early  as  1715.  During  the  seventy  years  that 
the  whales  were  taken  in  boats,  not  a  single  white  man  lost  his  life  in  pur- 
suit of  them.  The  whale  taken  from  the  shore  was  the  right  whale,  as 
the  spermaceti  does  not  visit  soundings. 

Soon  after  vessels  were  employed  in  this  business,  a  northerly  gale  drove 
one  of  them  from  the  coast,  and  when  it  abated,  spermaceti  whales  were 
discovered,  and  one  was  taken  and  brought  into  port.  This  was,  probably, 
the  first  of  the  kind  ever  taken;  and  being  found  more  valuable  than  the 
right  whale,  the  adventurous  whalemen  were  induced  to  launch  into  the 
deep,  and  a  new  direction  was  thereupon  given  to  the  business.  There 
were,  in  1730,  nearly  thirty  sail,  of  from  30  to  50  tons,  employed,  and  they 
obtained  annually,  about  3,700  barrels  of  oil,  which,  until  1745,  was  shipped 
to  Boston  and  there  sold.  In  the  last  mentioned  year,  a  voyage  was  made 
to  London,  and  after  that  a  trade  was  carried  on  with  that  port.  In  1746 
*  Burke's  Speech,  1775. 


437 

the  pursuit  of  the  whale  had  extended  to  Davis's  Straits;  and  in  1765 
to  the  Western  Islands — (Azores.) 

Between  the  years  1755  and  1768,  ten  sail  were  either  lost  or  taken,  by 
the  French.  There  were,  in  1770,  120  sail,  of  from  75  to  110  tons,  engaged 
in  the  trade,  and  18,000  barrels  of  oil  were  obtained  annually.  And  be- 
tween 1772  and  1775  there  were  150  sail,  of  from  90  to  180  tons,  upon  the 
coasts  of  Guinea,  Brazil,  West  Indies,  &c.  and  30,000  barrels  of  oil  were  an- 
nually obtained,  which  sold,  in  the  London  market,  for  £44  to  £45 — making 
an  aggregate  of  £167,000.  There  were,  at  this  time,  2,200  seamen  em- 
ployed in  fishing,  and  220  in  the  London  trade.  During  the  Revolutionary 
War  the  whale  fishery  was  prostrated,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  island 
suffered  much  in  their  property;  and  toward  the  close  of  it,  great  distress 
began  to  appear  among  them.  In  1783,  of  their  large  fleet,  they  had  re- 
maining, but  7  sail  to  Brazil  of  100  to  150  tons — 5  to  the  Coast  of  Guinea, 
and  7  to  the  West  Indies;  and  they  obtained  but  about  three  thousand 
barrels  of  oil. 

The  British  government  availed  themselves  of  the  depressed  condition 
of  the  fishery,  and,  in  1784,  exacted  a  duty  of  £18.3  sterling  per  ton,  which 
almost  entirely  destroyed  the  market.  Strong  inducements  were  held  out 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Nantucket  to  remove  to  Halifax,  and  establish  them- 
selves there.  In  1786-7  a  considerable  number  removed  to  that  place, 
but  soon  abandoned  it  and  returned.  After  this  period,  the  fishery  grad- 
ually advanced;  and,  in  those  seas  where  the  whale  had  been  taken  for 
years,  viz.  the  Western  Islands,  the  coast  of  Guinea,  Brazils,  and  some  less 
frequented  coasts,  the  business  was  diligently  pursued  until,  in  1788,  stim- 
ulated by  large  bounties,  a  ship  was  fitted  from  London  for  the  Pacific. 
In  that  year,  the  first  Spermaceti,  which  was  ever  vexed  by  man  in  that 
ocean,  yielded  to  the  skill  of  the  only  American  on  board  that  vessel,  a  na- 
tive of  Nantucket,  now  living  in  that  place.  The  first  vessel  which  ever 
went  from  that  town  into  that  ocean  commenced  her  voyage  in  1791.  The 
Spermaceti  whale  continued  to  be  taken  on  the  coasts  of  Chili  and  Peru, 
and  the  fleet  to  augment,  until  the  war  of  1812  put  a  stop  to  the  pursuit. 
At  that  time,  there  were  employed  in  the  business  about  40  ships,  of  200  to 
250  tons  each.  One  half  of  this  number  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy; 
and  at  the  peace  of  1815,  twenty  ships  only,  from  that  port,  remained  to 
continue  the  fishery.  These  were  soon  fitted,  and  speedily  took  their  de- 
parture for  either  the  coasts  of  Brazil,  Chili,  or  Peru.  The  increase  of 
the  business  soon  spread  a  large  fleet  on  the  last  mentioned  coast,  and  the 
whale  became  exceedingly  scarce.  They  were,  in  fact,  driven  by  continued 
pursuit  from  their  accustomed  track. 

It  became  necessary  to  explore  regions  unfrequented,  even  to  procure 
cargoes  for  vessels  already  in  the  Pacific.  Accordingly,  in  the  year  1819, 
steering  westward  to  the  longitude  of  90  to  100,  whales  were  again  found, 
and  large  quantities  of  oil  procured  in  a  short  time.  This  "off  shore 
ground,"  as  it  was  called,  being  quite  limited,  was  soon  crowded  with  ships, 
and  other  haunts  of  the  whale  must  be  found.  In  1821,  therefore,  the  first 
ship  which  ever  adventured,  to  the  north,  as  it  is  called,  to  the  "  Japan 
Coast,"  entered  those  seas;  and  her  great  success  richly  repaid  her  enterpri- 


438 

sing  owners.  She  belonged  to  Nantucket.  Since  that  period,  the  princi- 
pal part  of  the  spermaceti  oil  imported  into  this  country,  has  been  procured 
northward  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  in  various  degrees  of  latitude  and  lon- 
gitude— in  an  ocean  almost  entirely  unexplored,  and  in  which  there  have 
been  already  discovered,  by  these  navigators,  a  large  number  of  most  dan- 
gerous reefs  and  shoals. 

The  history  of  the  whale  fishery  from  New  Bedford,  is  comprehended,  in 
all  important  respects,  in  the  foregoing  statement  as  to  Nantucket.  The 
fishery  of  the  former  has  always  followed  that  of  the  latter.  Its  local 
advantages  are  superior,  and  have  enabled  it  already  to  maintain  a  power- 
ful rivalship  in  the  trade. 

In  1827,  New  Bedford  had  engaged  in  whale  fishing,  68  Ships  and  17 
Brigs.  There  were  imported  of  Spermaceti  oil  43,533  bbls — of  Whale  oil, 
22,065  bbls— Bone  (whale),  169,581  pounds. 

Nantucket  had  engaged  in  the  fishery,  62  Ships  and  1  Brig.  Spermaceti 
oil  imported  32,190  bbls.— Whaleoil,  2,000  bbls.— Bone,  12,000  lbs. 

There  were  imported  into  all  other  ports : — in  New  York,  Connecticut, 
Rhode  Island,  &c.  of  Spermaceti  oil  16,467  bbls.— Whaleoil,  25,000  bbls. 

The  Ships  engaged  in  the  Spermaceti  fishing  in  the  Pacific,  are  from  300 
to  480  tons  each,  and  are  manned  with  21  to  30  men.  In  1827  the  value 
of  oil  averaged  about  70  cts.  for  Spermaceti,  and  SO  cents  for  whale,  and  50 
cents  for  bone. 

This  little  spot  is  the  nucleus  of  the  whale  fishing  of  the  world.  A  busi- 
ness of  so  much  importance,  and  so  rapidly  increasing,  would  seem  to  deserve 
attention,  and  such  aid  as  is  consistent  with  other  great  branches  of  nation- 
al industry  and  enterprise. 


INTRODUCTORY    LECTURE, 


READ  TO  THE  BOSTON  MECHANICS'   INSTITUTION,  AT  THE  OPEN- 
ING OF  THE  COURSE  OF  LECTURES.    NOV.  12,  1828. 


I  appear  before  you,  gentlemen,  for  the  performance  of  a  duty, 
which  is,  in  so  great  a  degree,  foreign  from  my  habitual  studies  and 
pursuits,  that  it  may  be  presumptuous  in  me  to  hope  for  a  creditable 
execution  of  the  task.  But  I  have  not  allowed  considerations  of 
this  kind  to  weigh  against  a  strong  and  ardent  desire  to  signify  my 
approbation  of  the  objects,  and  my  conviction  of  the  utility,  of  this 
institution;  and  to  manifest  my  prompt  attention  to  whatever  others 
may  suppose  to  be  in  my  power,  to  promote  its  respectability  and  to 
further  its  designs. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Association  declares  its  precise  object  to 
be,  "  Mutual  Instruction  in  the  Sciences,  as  connected  with  the 
Mechanic  Arts." 

The  distinct  purpose  is  to  connect  science,  more  and  more,  with 
art;  to  teach  the  established,  and  invent  new,  modes  of  combining 
skill  with  strength;  to  bring  the  power  of  the  human  understanding 
in  aid  of  the  physical  powers  of  the  human  frame;  to  facilitate  the 
cooperation  of  the  mind  with  the  hand;  to  augment  convenience, 
lighten  labor,  and  mitigate  toil,  by  stretching  the  dominion  of  mind, 
farther  and  farther,  over  the  elements  of  nature,  and  by  making  those 
elements,  themselves,  submit  to  human  rule,  follow  human  bidding, 
and  work  together  for  human  happiness. 

The  visible  and  tangible  creation  into  which  we  are  introduced 
at  our  birth,  is  not,  in  all  its  parts,  fixed  and  stationary.  Motion,  or 
change  of  place,  regular  or  occasional,  belongs  to  all  or  most  of  the 
things  which  are  around  us.  Animal  life  everywhere  moves;  the 
earth  itself  has  its  motion,  and  its  complexities  of  motion;  the  ocean 
heaves  and  subsides;  rivers  run  lingering  or  rushing,  to  the  sea;  and 
the  air  which  we  breathe  moves  and  acts  with  mighty  power.  Mo- 
tion, thus  pertaining  to  the  physical  objects  which  surround  us,  is 
the  exhaustless  fountain,  whence  philosophy  draws  the  means,  by 
which,  in  various  degrees,  and  endless  forms,  natural  agencies  and 
the  tendencies  of  inert  matter,  are  brought  to  the  succour  and  assis- 


440 

tance  of  human  strength.  It  is  the  object  of  mechanical  contrivance 
to  modify  motion,  to  produce  it  in  new  forms,  to  direct  it  to  new  pur- 
poses, to  multiply  its  uses, — by  means  of  it  to  do  better,  that  which 
human  strength  could  do  without  its  aid, — and  to  perform  that,  also, 
which  such  strength,  unassisted  by  art,  could  not  perform. 

Motion  itself  is  but  the  result  of  force;  or,  in  other  words,  force 
is  defined  to  be  whatever  tends  to  produce  motion.  The  operation 
of  forces,  therefore,  on  bodies,  is  the  broad  field,  which  is  open  for 
that  philosophical  examination,  the  results  of  which  it  is  the  business 
of  mechanical  contrivance  to  apply.  The  leading  forces  or  sources 
of  motion  are,  as  is  well  known,  the  power  of  animals,  gravity,  heat, 
the  winds,  and  water.  There  are  various  others  of  less  power,  or 
of  more  difficult  application.  Mechanical  philosophy,  therefore,  may 
be  said  to  be  that  science  which  instructs  us  in  the  knowledge  of 
natural  moving  powers,  animate  or  inanimate;  in  the  manner  of 
modifying  those  powers,  and  of  increasing  the  intensity  of  some 
of  them  by  artificial  means,  such  as  heat  and  electricity;  and  in  ap- 
plying the  varieties  of  force  and  motion,  thus  derived  from  natural 
agencies,  to  the  arts  of  life.  This  is  the  object  of  mechanical  phi- 
losophy. None  can  doubt,  certainly,  the  high  importance  of  this 
sort  of  knowledge,  or  fail  to  see  how  suitable  it  is  to  the  elevated 
rank  and  the  dignity  of  reasoning  beings.  Man's  grand  distinction 
is  his  intellect,  his  mental  capacity.  It  is  this,  which  renders  him 
highly  and  peculiarly  responsible  to  his  Creator.  It  is  this,  on  ac- 
count of  which  the  rule  over  other  animals  is  established  in  his 
hands;  and  it  is  this,  mainly,  which  enables  him  to  exercise  dominion 
over  the  powers  of  nature,  and  to  subdue  them  to  himself. 

But  it  is  true,  also,  that  his  own  animal  organization  gives  him  su- 
periority, and  is  among  the  most  wonderful  of  the  works  of  God  on 
earth.  It  contributes  to  cause,  as  well  as  prove,  his  elevated  rank 
in  creation.  His  port  is  erect,  his  face  toward  heaven,  and  he  is 
furnished  with  limbs  which  are  not  absolutely  necessary  to  his  sup- 
port or  locomotion,  and  which  are  at  once  powerful,  flexible,  capable 
of  innumerable  modes  and  varieties  of  action,  and  terminated  by  an 
instrument  of  wonderful,  heavenly  workmanship, — the  human  hand. 
This  marvellous  physical  conformation,  gives  man  the  power  of  act- 
ing, with  great  effect,  upon  external  objects,  in  pursuance  of  the 
suggestions  of  his  understanding,  and  of  applying  the  results  of  his 
reasoning  power  to  his  own  purposes.  Without  this  particular  for- 
mation, he  would  not  be  man,  with  whatever  sagacity  he  had  been 
endowed.  No  bounteous  grant  of  intellect,  were  it  the  pleasure  of 
heaven  to  make  such  grant,  could  raise  any  of  the  brute  creation  to 
an  equality  with  the  human  race.  Were  it  bestowed  on  the  Levia- 
than, he  must  remain,  nevertheless,  in  the  element  where  alone  he 
could  maintain  his  physical  existence.  He  would  still  be  but  the  in- 
elegant, misshapen  inhabitant  of  the  ocean,  "  wallowing  unwieldy, 
enormous  in  his  gait."  Were  the  Elephant  made  to  possess  it,  it 
would  but  teach  him  the  deformity  of  his  own  structure,  the  un- 
loveliness  of  his  frame,  though  "  the  hugest  of  things,"  his  disability 
to  act  on  external  matter,  and  the  degrading  nature  of  his  own  phys- 
ical wants,  which  lead  him  to  the  deserts,  and  give  him  for  his  favorite 


441 

home  the  torrid  plains  of  the  tropics.  It  was  placing  the  king  of 
Babylon  sufficiently  out  of  the  rank  of  human  beings,  though  he  car- 
ried all  his  reasoning  faculties  with  him,  when  he  was  sent  away,  to 
eat  grass  like  an  ox.  And  this  may  properly  suggest  to  our  conside- 
ration, what  is  undeniably  true,  that  there  is  hardly  a  greater  blessing 
conferred  on  man  than  his  natural  wants.  If  he  had  wanted  no 
more  than  the  beasts,  who  can  say  how  much  more  than  they,  he 
would  have  attained?  Does  he  associate,  does  he  cultivate,  does 
he  build,  does  he  navigate?  The  original  impulse  to  all  these,  lies 
in  his  wants.  It  proceeds  from  the  necessities  of  his  condition,  and 
from  the  efforts  of  unsatisfied  desire.  Every  want  not  of  a  low 
kind,  physical  as  well  as  moral,  which  the  human  breast  feels,  and 
which  brutes  do  not  feel  and  cannot  feel,  raises  man,  by  so  much, 
in  the  scale  of  existence,  and  is  a  clear  proof,  and  a  direct  instance, 
of  the  favor  of  God  towards  his  so  much  favored  human  offspring. 
If  man  had  been  so  made  as  to  have  desired  nothing,  he  would  have 
wanted  almost  everything  worth  possessing. 

But  doubtless  the  reasoning  faculty,  the  mind,  is  the  leading  char- 
acteristic attribute  of  the  human  race.  By  the  exercise  of  this,  he 
arrives  at  the  knowledge  of  the  properties  of  natural  bodies.  This 
is  science,  properly  and  emphatically  so  called.  It  is  the  science 
of  pure  mathematics;  and  in  the  high  branches  of  this  science  lies 
the  true  sublime  of  human  acquisition.  If  any  attainment  deserve 
that  epithet,  it  is  the  knowledge,  which,  from  the  mensuration  of  the 
minutest  dust  of  the  balance,  proceeds  on  the  rising  scale  of  mate- 
rial bodies,  everywhere  weighing,  everywhere  measuring,  every- 
where detecting  and  explaining  the  laws  of  force  and  motion,  pene- 
trating into  the  secret  principles  which  hold  the  universe  of  God 
together,  and  balancing  world  against  world,  and  system  against 
system.  When  we  seek  to  accompany  those,  who  pursue  their 
studies  at  once  so  high,  so  vast  and  so  exact;  when  we  arrive  at  the 
discoveries  of  Newton,  which  pour  in  day,  on  the  works  of  God,  as 
if  a  second  fiat  for  light  had  gone  forth  from  his  own  mouth; — when, 
further,  we  attempt  to  follow  those,  who  set  out  where  Newton 
paused,  making  his  goal  their  starting  place,  and  proceeding  with 
demonstration  upon  demonstration,  and  discovery  upon  discovery, 
bring  new  worlds,  and  new  systems  of  worlds  within  the  limits  of 
the  known  universe,  failing  to  learn  all  only  because  all  is  infinite; 
however  we  say  of  man,  in  admiration  of  his  physical  structure, 
that  "  in  form  and  moving  he  is  express  and  admirable,"  it  is  here, 
and  here  without  irreverence,  we  may  exclaim,  "  in  apprehension  how 
like  a'  God  !  "  The  study  of  the  pure  mathematics  will  of  course 
not  be  extensively  pursued  in  an  institution,  which,  like  this,  has  a 
direct  practical  tendency  and  aim.  But  it  is  still  to  be  remembered, 
that  pure  mathematics  lie  at  the  foundation  of  mechanical  philosophy, 
and  that  it  is  ignorance  only  which  can  speak  or  think  of  that  sub- 
lime science  as  useless  research  or  barren  speculation. 

It  has  already  been  said  that  the  general  and  well  known  agents, 
usually  regarded  as  the  principal  sources  of  mechanical  powers, 
are,  gravity,  acting  on  solid  bodies,  the  fall  of  water,  which  is  but 
gravity  acting  on  fluids,  air,  heat,  and  animal  strength.     For  the 

56 


442 

useful  direction  and  application  of  the  four  first  of  these,  that  is,  of 
all  of  them  which  belong  to  inanimate  nature,  some  intermediate  ap- 
paratus, or  contrivance,  becomes  necessary;  and  this  apparatus, 
whatever  its  form,  is  a  machine.  A  machine  is  an  invention  for  the 
application  of  motion,  either  by  changing  the  direction  of  the  moving 
power,  or  by  rendering  a  body  in  motion  capable  of  communicating 
a  motkm  greater  or  less  than  its  own  to  other  bodies,  or  by  enabling 
it  to  overcome  a  power  of  greater  intensity  or  force  than  its  own. 
And  it  is  usually  said  that  every  machine,  however  apparently  com- 
plex, is  capable  of  being  resolved  into  some  one  or  more  of  those 
single  machines,  of  which,  according  to  one  mode  of  description, 
there  are  six,  and  according  to  another,  three,  called  the  mechanical 
powers.  But  because  machinery,  or  all  mechanical  contrivance,  is 
thus  capable  of  resolution  into  a  few  elementary  forms,  it  is  not  to 
be  inferred  that  science,  or  art,  or  both  together,  though  pressed 
with  the  utmost  force  of  human  genius,  and  cultivated  by  the  last 
degree  of  human  assiduity,  will  ever  exhaust  the  combinations  into 
which  these  elementary  forms  may  be  thrown.  An  indefinite, 
though  not  an  infinite  reach  of  invention  may  be  expected;  but  in- 
definite, also,  if  not  infinite,  are  the  possible  combinations  of  ele- 
mentary principles.  The  field,  then,  is  vast  and  unbounded.  We 
know  not,  to  what  yet  unthought  of  heights  the  power  of  man  over 
the  agencies  of  nature  may  be  carried.  We  only  know,  that  the 
last  half  century  has  witnessed  an  amazingly  accelerated  progress 
in  useful  discoveries,  and  that  at  the  present  moment,  science  and 
art  are  acting  together,  with  a  new  companionship,  and  with  the 
most  happy  and  striking  results.  The  history  of  mechanical  philos- 
ophy, is,  of  itself,  a  very  interesting  subject,  and  will  doubtless  be 
treated  in  this  place  fully,  and  methodically,  by  stated  lecturers. 

It  is  a  part  of  the  history  of  man,  which,  like  that  of  his  domestic 
habits  and  daily  occupations,  has  been  too  unfrequently  the  subject 
of  research;  having  been  thrust  aside  by  the  more  dazzling  topics 
of  war  and  political  revolutions.  We  are  not  often  conducted  by 
historians  within  the  houses  or  huts  of  our  ancestors,  as  they  were 
centuries  ago,  and  made  acquainted  with  their  domestic  utensils 
and  domestic  arrangements.  We  see  too  little,  both  of  the  conve- 
niences and  inconveniences  of  their  daily  and  ordinary  life.  There 
are,  indeed,  rich  materials  for  interesting  details  on  these  par- 
ticulars, to  be  collected  from  the  labors  of  Goguet  and  Beckmann, 
Henry  and  Turner;  but,  still,  a  thorough  and  well  written  history  of 
those  inventions  in  the  mechanic  arts,  which  are  now  commonly 
known,  is  a  desideratum  in  literature.  v 

Human  sagacity,  stimulated  by  human  wants,  seizes  first  on  the 
nearest  natural  assistant.  The  power  of  his  own  arm,  is  an  early 
lesson,  among  the  studies  of  primitive  man.  This  is  animal 
strength;  and  from  this  he  rises  to  the  conception  of  employing,  for 
his  own  use,  the  strength  of  other  animals.  A  stone,  impelled  by 
the  power  of  his  arm,  he  finds  will  produce  a  greater  effect,  than  the 
arm  itself;  this  is  a  species  of  mechanical  power.  The  effect  re- 
sults from  a  combination  of  the  moving  force  with  the  gravity  of  a 
heavy  body.     The  limb  of  a  tree  is  a  rude,  but  powerful  instrument; 


443 

it  is  a  lever.  And  the  mechanical  powers  being  all  discovered,  like 
other  natural  qualities,  by  induction,  (I  use  the  word  as  Bacon  used 
it,)  or  experience,  and  not  by  any  reasoning  a  priori,  their  progress 
has  kept  pace  with  the  general  civilisation  and  education  of  nations. 
The  history  of  mechanical  philosophy,  while  it  strongly  illustrates, 
in  its  general  results,  the  force  of  the  human  mind,  exhibits,  in  its 
details,  most  interesting  pictures  of  ingenuity  struggling  with  the 
conception  of  new  combinations,  and  of  deep,  intense,  and  powerful 
thought,  stretched  to  its  utmost  to  find  out,  or  deduce,  the  general 
principle  from  the  indications  of  particular  facts.  We  are  now  so 
far  advanced  beyond  the  age  when  the  principal,  leading,  important 
mathematical  discoveries  were  made,  and  they  have  become  so  much 
matter  of  common  knowledge,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  feel  their  impor- 
tance, or  be  justly  sensible  what  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  science 
each  constituted.  The  half  frantic  exultation  of  Archimedes,  when 
he  had  solved  the  problem  respecting  the  crown  of  Hiero,  was  on 
an  occasion  and  for  a  cause  certainly  well  allowing  very  high  joy. 
And  so  also  was  the  duplication  of  the  cube. 

The  altar  of  Apollo  at  Athens  was  a  square  block,  or  cube,  and 
to  double  it  required  the  duplication  of  the  cube.  This  was  a 
process  involving  an  unascertained  mathematical  principle.  It  was 
quite  natural,  therefore,  that  it  should  be  a  traditional  story,  that 
by  way  of  atoning  for  some  affront  to  that  god,  the  oracle  command- 
ed the  Athenians  to  double  his  altar;  an  injunction,  we  know,  which 
occupied  the  keen  sagacity  of  the  Greek  geometricians  for  more 
than  half  a  century,  before  they  were  able  to  obey  it.  It  is  to  the 
great  honor,  however,  of  this  inimitable  people,  the  Greeks,  a  peo- 
ple whose  genius  seems  to  have  been  equally  fitted  for  the  investi- 
gations of  science  and  the  works  of  imagination,  that  the  immortal 
Euclid,  centuries  before  our  era,  composed  his  Elements  of  Geome- 
try; a  work  which,  for  two  thousand  years,  has  been,  and  still  con- 
tinues to  be,  a  text  book  for  instruction  in  that  science. 

A  history  of  mechanical  philosophy,  however,  would  not  begin 
with  Greece.  There  is  a  wonder  beyond  Greece.  Higher  up  in 
the  annals  of  mankind,  nearer,  far  nearer,  to  the  origin  of  our  race, 
out  of  all  reach  of  letters,  beyond  the  sources  of  tradition,  beyond 
all  history,  except  what  remains  in  the  monuments  of  her  own  art, 
stands  Egypt,  the  mother  of  nations!  Egypt!  Thebes!  the  Laby- 
rinth! the  Pyramids!  Who  shall  explain  the  mysteries,  which  these 
names  suggest?  The  Pyramids!  Who  can  inform  us,  whether 
it  was  by  mere  numbers,  and  patience,  and  labor,  aided  perhaps  by 
the  simple  lever,  or  if  not,  by  what  forgotten  combination  of  power, 
by  what  now  unknown  machines,  mass  was  thus  aggregated  to  mass, 
and  quarry  piled  on  quarry,  till  solid  granite  seemed  to  cover  the 
earth  and  reach  the  skies? 

The  ancients  discovered  many  things,  but  they  left  many  things 
also  to  be  discovered;  and  this,  as  a  general  truth,  is  what  our  posteri- 
ty, a  thousand  years  hence,  will  be  able  to  say,  doubtless,  when  we 
and  our  generation  shall  be  recorded  also  among  the  ancients.  For, 
indeed,  God  seems  to  have  proposed  his  material  universe,  as  a 
standing,  perpetual  study  to  his  intelligent  creatures;  where,  ever 


444 

learning,  they  can  yet  never  learn  all;  and  if  that  material  universe 
shall  last  till  man  shall  have  discovered  all  that  is  unknown,  but  which, 
by  the  progressive  improvement  of  his  faculties  he  is  capable  of 
knowing,  it  will  remain  through  a  duration  beyond  human  measure- 
ment, and  beyond  human  comprehension. 

The  ancients  knew  nothing  of  our  present  system  of  arithmetical 
notation;  nothing  of  algebra,  and  of  course  nothing  of  the  impor- 
tant application  of  algebra  to  geometry.  They  had  not  learned 
the  use  of  logarithms,  and  were  ignorant  of  fluxions.  They  had  not 
attained  to  any  just  mode  for  the  mensuration  of  the  earth;  a  matter 
of  great  moment  to  astronomy,  navigation,  and  other  branches  of 
useful  knowledge.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  they  were 
ignorant  of  the  great  results  which  have  followed  the  developement 
of  the  principle  of  gravitation. 

In  the  useful  and  practical  arts,  many  inventions  and  contrivan- 
ces, to  the  production  of  which  the  degree  of  ancient  knowledge 
would  appear  to  us  to  have  been  adequate,  and  which  seem  quite 
obvious,  are  yet  of  late  origin.  The  application  of  water,  for  exam- 
ple, to  turn  a  mill,  is  a  thing  not  known  to  have  been  accomplished 
at  all  in  Greece,  and  is  not  supposed  to  have  been  attempted  at 
Rome,  till  in  or  near  the  age  of  Augustus.  The  production  of  the 
same  effect  by  wind,  is  a  still  later  invention.  It  dates  only  in  the 
seventh  century  of  our  era.  The  propulsion  of  the  saw,  by  any 
other  power  than  that  of  the  arm,  is  treated  as  a  novelty  in  England, 
so  late  as  in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  Bishop  of 
Ely,  Ambassador  from  the  Queen  of  England  to  the  Pope,  says, 
"  he  saw,  at  Lyons,  a  saw-mill  driven  with  an  upright  wheel,  and  the 
water  that  makes  it  go  is  gathered  into  a  narrow  trough,  which  deliv- 
ereth  the  same  water  to  the  wheels.  This  wheel  hath  a  piece  of 
timber  put  to  the  axletree  end,  like  the  handle  of  a  brock,  (a  hand 
organ,)  and  fastened  to  the  end  of  the  saw,  which  being  turned  with 
the  force  of  water,  hoisteth  up  and  down  the  saw,  that  it  continually 
eateth  in,  and  the  handle  of  the  same  is  kept  in  a  rigall  of  wood, 
from  severing.  Also  the  timber  lieth,  as  it  were  upon  a  ladder, 
which  is  brought  by  little  and  little  to  the  saw  by  another  vice." 
From  this  description  of  the  primitive  power-saw,  it  would  seem 
that  it  was  probably  fast  only  at  one  end,  and  that  the  brock  and 
rigall  performed  the  part  of  the  arm,  in  the  common  use  of  the 
handsaw. 

It  must  always  have  been  a  very  considerable  object  for  men  to 
possess,  or  obtain,  the  power  of  raising  water,  otherwise  than  by 
mere  manual  labor.  Yet  nothing  like  the  common  suction  pump 
has  been  found  among  rude  nations.  It  has  arrived  at  its  present 
state  only  by  slow  and  doubtful  steps  of  improvement;  and,  indeed, 
in  that  present  state,  however  obvious  and  unattractive,  it  is  some- 
thing of  an  abstruse  and  refined  invention.  It  was  unknown  in 
China,  until  Europeans  visited  the  "  Celestial  Empire;"  and  is  still 
unknown  in  other  parts  of  Asia,  beyond  the  pale  of  European  settle- 
ments, or  the  reach  of  European  communication.  The  Greeks  and 
Romans  are  supposed  to  have  been  ignorant  of  it,  in  the  early  times 
of  their  history;  and  it  is  usually  said  to  have  come  from  Alexan- 


445 

dria,  where  physical  science  was  much  cultivated  by  the  Greek 
school,  under  the  patronage  of  the  Ptolemies. 

These  few  and  scattered  historical  notices,  gentlemen,  of  impor- 
tant inventions,  have  been  introduced  only  for  the  purpose  of  sug- 
gesting that  there  is  much  which  is  both  curious  and  instructive  in 
the  history  of  mechanics;  and  that  many  things  which  to  us,  in  our 
state  of  knowledge,  seem  so  obvious  as  that  we  should  think  they 
would  at  once  force  themselves  on  men's  adoption,  have,  neverthe- 
less, been  accomplished  slowly  and  by  painful  efforts. 

But  if  the  history  of  the  progress  of  the  mechanical  arts  be  in- 
teresting, still  more  so,  doubtless,  would  be  the  exhibition  of  their  pres- 
ent state,  and  a  full  display  of  the  extent  to  which  they  are  now  car- 
ried. This  field  is  much  too  wide  even  to  be  entered,  on  this  occasion. 
The  briefest  outline  even,  would  exceed  itslimits;  and  the  whole  subject 
will  regularly  fall  to  hands  much  more  able  to  sustain  it.  The  slight- 
est glance,  however,  must  convince  us  that  mechanical  power  and 
mechanical  skill,  as  they  are  now  exhibited  in  Europe  and  America, 
mark  an  epoch  in  human  history,  worthy  of  all  admiration.  Ma- 
chinery is  made  to  perform  what  has  formerly  been  the  toil  of  human 
hands,  to  an  extent  that  astonishes  the  most  sanguine,  with  a  degree 
of  power  to  which  no  number  of  human  arms  is  equal,  and  with  such 
precision  and  exactness  as  almost  to  suggest  the  notion  of  reason 
and  intelligence  in  the  machines  themselves.  Every  natural  agent 
is  put  unrelentingly  to  the  task.  The  winds  work,  the  waters  work, 
the  elasticity  of  metals  work:  gravity  is  solicited  into  a  thousand 
new  forms  of  action:  levers  are  multiplied  upon  levers:  wheels  revolve 
on  the  peripheries  of  other  wheels;  the  saw  and  the  plane  are  tor- 
tured into  an  accommodation  to  new  uses,  and,  last  of  all,  with 
inimitable  power,  and  "  with  whirlwind  sound,"  comes  the  potent 
agency  of  steam.  In  comparison  with  the  past,  what  centuries  of 
improvement  has  this  single  agent  comprised,  in  the  short  compass 
of  fifty  years  !  Everywhere  practicable,  everywhere  efficient,  it 
has  an  arm  a  thousand  times  stronger  than  that  of  Hercules,  and  to 
which  human  ingenuity  is  capable  of  fitting  a  thousand  times  as 
many  hands  as  belonged  to  Bnareus.  Steam  is  found,  in  triumph- 
ant operation,  on  the  seas;  and  under  the  influence  of  its  strong  pro 
pulsion,   the  gallant  ship, 

"  Against  the  wind,  against  the  tide 
Still  steadies,  with  an  upright  keel." 

It  is  on  the  rivers,  and  the  boatman  may  repose  on  his  oars;  it  is  in 
highways,  and  bpgins  to  exert  itself  along  the  courses  of  land  con- 
veyance ;  it  is  at  the  bottom  of  mines,  a  thousand  feet  below  the  earth's 
surface ;  it  is  in  the  mill,  and  in  the  workshops  of  the  trades.  It  rows, 
it  pumps,  it  excavates,  it  carries,  it  draws,  it  lifts,  it  hammers,  it  spins, 
it  weaves,  it  prints.  It  seems  to  say  to  men,  at  least  to  the  class 
of  artisans,  "  Leave  off  your  manual  labor,  give  over  your  bodily 
toil;  bestow  but  your  skill  and  reason  to  the  directing  of  my  power, 
and  I  will  bear  the  toil, — with  no  muscle  to  grow  weary,  no  nerve  to 
relax,  no  breast  to  feel  faintness."  What  further  improvements 
may  still  be  made  in  the  use  of  this  astonishing  power,  it  is  impos- 

oo 


446 

sible  to  know,  and  it  were  vain  to  conjecture.  What  we  do  know,  is, 
that  it  has  most  essentially  altered  the  face  of  affairs,  and  that  no 
visible  limit  yet  appears  beyond  which  its  progress  is  seen  to  be  im- 
possible. If  its  power  were  now  to  be  annihilated,  if  we  were  to 
miss  it  on  the  water  and  in  the  mills,  it  would  seem  as  if  we  were 
going  back  to  rude  ages. 

This  society,  then,  gentlemen,  is  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  further 
and  further  applying  science  to  the  arts,  at  a  time  when  there  is 
much  of  science  to  be  applied.  Philosophy  and  the  Mathematics  have 
attained  to  high  degrees,  and  still  stretch  their  wings,  like  the  Eagle. 
Chymistry,  at  the  same  time,  acting  in  another  direction,  has  made 
equally  important  discoveries,  capable  of  a  direct  application  to  the 
purposes  of  life.  Here,  again,  within  so  short  a  period  as  the  lives 
of  some  of  us,  almost  all  that  is  known  has  been  learned.  And 
while  there  is  this  aggregate  of  science,  already  vast,  but  still  rapid- 
ly increasing,  offering  itself  to  the  ingenuity  of  mechanical  contri- 
vance, there  is  a  corresponding  demand  for  every  work  and  inven- 
tion of  art, — produced  by  the  wants  of  a  rich,  an  enterprising  and 
an  elegant  age.  Associations  like  this,  therefore,  have  materials 
to  work  upon,  ends  to  work  for,  and  encouragement  to  work. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  suggest,  that  not  only  are  the  general 
circumstances  of  the  age  favorable  to  such  institutions  as  this, 
but  that  there  seems  a  high  degree  of  propriety  that  one  or  more 
should  be  established  here,  in  the  metropolis  of  New  England.  In 
no  other  part  of  the  country,  is  there  so  great  a  concentration  of 
mechanical  operations.  Events  have  given  to  New  England  the 
lead,  in  the  great  business  of  domestic  manufactures.  Her  thick- 
ened population,  her  energetic  free  labor,  her  abundant  falls  of  wa- 
ter, and  various  other  causes,  have  led  her  citizens  to  embark,  with 
great  boldness,  into  extensive  manufactures.  The  success  of  their 
establishments  depends,  of  course,  in  no  small  degree,  upon  the  per- 
fection to  which  machinery  may  be  carried.  Improvement  in  this, 
therefore,  instead  of  being  left  to  chance  or  accident,  is  justly  re- 
garded as  a  fit  subject  of  assiduous  study.  The  attention  of  our 
community  is,  also,  at  the  present  moment,  strongly  attracted  towards 
the  construction  of  canals,  railways,  dry  docks,  and  other  important 
public  works.  Civil  engineering  is  becoming  a  profession,  offering 
honorable  support  and  creditable  distinction  to  such  as  may  qualify 
themselves  to  discharge  its  duties.  Another  interesting  fact  is  before 
us.  New  taste  and  a  new  excitement  are  evidently  springing  up 
in  our  vicinity  in  regard  to  an  art,  which,  as  it  unites  in  a  singular 
degree,  utility  and  beauty,  affords  inviting  encouragements  to  genius 
and  skill.  I  mean  Architecture.  Architecture  is  military,  naval, 
sacred,  civil,  or  domestic.  Naval  architecture,  certainly,  is  of  the 
highest  importance  to  a  commercial  and  navigating  people,  to  say 
nothing  of  its  intimate  and  essential  connexion,  with  the  means  of  na- 
tional defence.  This  science  should  not  be  regarded  as  having  al- 
ready reached  its  utmost  perfection.  It  seems  to  have  been  sometime 
in  a  course  of  rapid  advancement.  The  building,  the  rigging,  the 
navigating  of  ships  have,  to  every  ones  conviction,  been  subjects 
of  great  improvement  within  the  last  fifteen  years.     And  where, 


447 

rather  than  in  New  England,  may  still  further  improvements  be 
looked  for?  Where  is  ship  building  either  a  greater  business,  or 
pursued  with  more  skill  and  eagerness? 

In  civil,  sacred,  and  domestic  architecture,  present  appearances 
authorise  the  strongest  hopes  of  improvement.  These  hopes  rest, 
among  other  things,  on  unambiguous  indications  of  the  growing 
prevalence  of  a  just  taste.  The  principles  of  architecture  are  found- 
ed in  nature,  or  good  sense,  as  much  as  the  principles  of  epic  poet- 
ry. The  art  constitutes  a  beautiful  medium,  between  what  belongs 
to  mere  fancy,  and  what  belongs  entirely  to  the  exact  sciences.  In 
its  forms  and  modifications,  it  admits  of  infinite  variation,  giving 
broad  room  for  invention  and  genius;  while,  in  its  general  princi- 
ples, it  is  founded  on  that  which  long  experience  and  the  concurrent 
judgment  of  ages  have  ascertained  to  be  generally  pleasing.  Cer- 
tain relations,  of  parts  to  parts,  have  been  satisfactory  to  all  the  culti- 
vated generations  of  men.  These  relations  constitute  what  is  called 
proportion,  and  this  is  the  great  basis  of  architectural  art.  This  es- 
tablished proportion  is  not  to  be  followed  merely  because  it  is  ancient, 
but  because  its  use,  and  the  pleasure  which  it  has  been  found  capa- 
ble of  giving  to  the  mind,  through  the  eye,  in  ancient  times,  and 
modern  times,  and  all  civilized  times,  prove  that  its  principles  are 
well  founded,  and  just;  in  the  same  manner  that  the  Iliad  is  proved, 
by  the  consent  of  all  ages,  to  be  a  good  poem. 

Architecture,  I  have  said,  is  an  art  that  unites,  in  a  singular  man- 
ner, the  useful  and  the  beautiful.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  this, 
that  everything  in  architecture  is  beautiful,  or  is  to  be  so  esteemed, 
in  exact  proportion  to  its  apparent  utility.  No  more  is  meant,  than 
that  nothing  which  evidently  thwarts  utility  can  or  ought  to  be  ac- 
counted beautiful;  because,  in  every  work  of  art,  the  design  is  to 
be  regarded,  and  what  defeats  that  design,  cannot  be  considered 
as  well  done.  The  French  rhetoricians  have  a  maxim,  that  in  litera- 
ry composition,  "  nothing  is  beautiful  which  is  not  true."  They 
do  not  intend  to  say,  that  strict  and  literal  truth  is  alone  beautiful 
in  poetry  or  oratory;  but  they  mean  that,  that  which  grossly  of- 
fends against  probability,  is  not  in  good  taste,  in  either.  The  same 
relation  subsists  between  beauty  and  utility  in  architecture,  as  be- 
tween truth  and  imagination  in  poetry.  Utility  is  not  to  be  obviously 
sacrificed  to  beauty,  in  the  one  case;  truth  and  probability  are  not  to 
be  outraged  for  the  cause  of  fiction  and  fancy,  in  the  other.  In  the 
severer  styles  of  architecture,  beauty  and  utility  approach,  so  as 
to  be  almost  identical.  Where  utility  is  more  strongly  than  ordinary 
the  main  design,  the  proportions  which  produce  it,  raise  the  sense 
or  feeling  of  beauty,  by  a  sort  of  reflection  or  deduction  of  the  mind. 
It  is  said  that  ancient  Rome  had  perhaps  no  finer  specimens  of  the 
classic  Doric,  than  were  in  the  sewers  which  ran  under  her  streets, 
and  which  were  of  course  always  to  be  covered  from  human  obser- 
vation: so  true  is  it,  that  cultivated  taste  is  always  pleased  with  just- 
ness of  proportion;  and  that  design,  seen  to  be  accomplished,  gives 
pleasure.  The  discovery  and  fast  increasing  use  of  a  noble  materi- 
al, found  in  vast  abundance,  nearer  to  our  cities  than  the  Pentelican 
quarries  to  Athens,  may  well  awaken,  as  they  do,  new  attention  to 


448 

architectural  improvement.  If  this  material  be  not  entirely  well 
suited  to  the  elegant  Ionic,  or  the  rich  Corinthian,  it  is  yet  fitted, 
beyond  marble,  beyond  perhaps  almost  any  other  material,  for  the 
Doric,  of  which  the  appropriate  character  is  strength,  and  for  the 
Gothic,  of  which  the  appropriate  character  is  grandeur. 

It  is  not  more  than  justice,  perhaps,  to  our  ancestors,  to  call  the 
Gothic  the  English,  classic  architecture;  for  in  England,  probably, 
are  its  most  distinguished  specimens.  As  its  leading  characteristic 
is  grandeur,  its  main  use  would  seem  to  be  sacred.  It  had  its  ori- 
gin, indeed,  in  ecclesiastical  architecture.  Its  evident  design  was 
to  surpass  the  ancient  orders,  by  the  size  of  the  structure  and  its  far 
greater  heights;  to  excite  perceptions  of  beauty,  by  the  branching 
traceries  and  the  gorgeous  tabernacles  within;  and  to  inspire  religious 
awe  and  reverence  by  the  lofty  pointed  arches; — the  flying  buttresses, 
the  spires,  and  the  pinnacles,  springing  from  beneath,  stretching  up- 
wards towards  the  heavens  with  the  prayers  of  the  worshippers.  Ar- 
chitectural beauty  having  always  adirect  reference  to  utility,  edifices, 
whether  civil  or  sacred,  must  of  course  undergo  different  changes, 
in  different  places,  on  account  of  climate,  and  in  different  ages,  on 
account  of  the  different  states  of  other  arts,  or  different  notions  of 
convenience.  The  hypethral  temple,  for  example,  or  temple  without 
a  roof,  is  not  to  be  thought  of  in  our  latitudes;  and  the  use  of  glass, 
a  thing  not  now  to  be  dispensed  with,  is  also  to  be  accommodated, 
as  well  as  it  may  be,  to  the  architectural  structure.  These  neces- 
sary variations,  and  many  more  admissible  ones,  give  room  for  im- 
provements to  an  indefinite  extent,  without  departing  from  the  prin- 
ciples of  true  taste.  May  we  not  hope,  then,  to  see  our  own  city 
celebrated  as  the  city  of  architectural  excellence?  May  we  not 
hope,  to  see  our  native  granite  reposing  in  the  ever  during  strength 
of  the  Doric,  or  springing  up  in  the  grand  and  lofty  Gothic,  in  forms 
which  beauty  and  utility,  the  eye  and  the  judgment,  taste  and  devo- 
tion, shall  unite  to  approve  and  to  admire?  But  while  we  regard  sa- 
cred and  civil  architecture  as  highly  important,  let  us  not  forget  that 
other  branch,  so  essential  to  personal  comfort  and  happiness, — domes- 
tic architecture,  or  common  housebuilding.  In  ancient  times,  in  all 
governments,  and  under  despotic  governments  in  all  times,  the  con- 
venience or  gratification  of  the  monarch,  the  government,  or  the 
public,  has  been  allowed  too  often,  to  put  aside  considerations  of 
personal  and  individual  happiness.  With  us,  different  ideas  happily 
prevail.  With  us,  it  is  not  the  public,  or  the  government,  in  its  cor- 
porate character,  that  is  the  only  object  of  regard.  The  public 
happiness  is  to  be  the  aggregate  of  the  happiness  of  individuals. 
Our  system  begins  with  the  individual  man.  It  begins  with  him 
when  he  leaves  the  cradle;  and  it  proposes  to  instruct  him  in  know- 
ledge and  in  morals,  to  prepare  him  for  his  state  of  manhood:  on  his 
arrival  at  that  state,  to  invest  him  with  political  rights,  to  protect 
him,  in  his  property  and  pursuits,  and  in  his  family  and  social  con- 
nexions; and  thus  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  as  an  individual,  moral, 
and  rational  being,  what  belongs  to  a  moral  and  rational  being.  For 
the  same  reason,  the  arts  are  to  be  promoted  for  their  general 
utility,  as  they  effect  the  personal  happiness  and  well  being  of  the 


449 

individuals  who  compose  the  community.  It  would  be  adverse  to 
the  whole  spirit  of  our  system,  that  we  should  have  gorgeous  and 
expensive  public  buildings,  if  individuals  were  at  the  same  time  to 
live  in  houses  of  mud.  Our  public  edifices  are  to  be  reared  by  the 
surplus  of  wealth,  and  the  savings  of  labor,  after  the  necessities  and 
comforts  of  individuals  are  provided  for;  and  not,  like  the  Pyramids, 
by  the  unremitted  toil  of  thousands  of  half  starved  slaves.  Domes- 
tic architecture,  therefore,  as  connected  with  individual  comfort  and 
happiness,  is  to  hold  a  first  place  in  the  esteem  of  our  artists.  Let 
our  citizens  have  houses  cheap,  but  comfortable;  not  gaudy,  but  in 
good  taste;  not  judged  by  the  portion  of  earth  which  they  cover,  but 
by  their  symmetry,  their  fitness  for  use,  and  their  durability. 

Without  farther  reference  to  particular  arts,  with  which  the  objects 
of  this  society  have  a  close  connexion,  it  may  yet  be  added,  gener- 
ally, that  this  is  a  period  of  great  activity,  of  industry,  of  enter- 
prise in  the  various  walks  of  life.  It  is  a  period,  too,  of  growing 
wealth,  and  increasing  prosperity.  It  is  a  time  when  men  are  fast 
multiplying,  but  when  means  are  increasing  still  faster  than  men. 
An  auspicious  moment,  then,  it  is,  full  of  motive  and  encouragement, 
for  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  those  inquiries,  which  have  for  their 
object  the  discovery  of  farther  and  farther  means  of  uniting  the  results 
of  scientific  research  to  the  arts  and  business  of  life. 


57  oo* 


ARGUMENT 


ON  THE  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  F.  KNAPP,  FOR  THE  MURDER  OF  JOSEPH 
WHITE,  ESQ.  OF  SALEM,  IN  THE  COUNTY  OF  ESSEX,  MASSA- 
CHUSETTS; ON  THE  NIGHT  OF  THE  6th  OF  APRIL,  1830. 


Mr.  White,  a  highly  respectable  and  wealthy  citizen  of  Salem,  about  eighty  years  of 
age,  was  found  on  the  morning  of  the  7th  of  April,  1830,  in  his  bed  murdered,  under  such 
circumstances  as  to  create  a  strong  sensation  in  that  town,  and  throughout  the  community. 

Richard  Crowninshield,  George  Crowninshield,  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  and  John  F.  Knapp, 
were  a  few  weeks  after  arrested  on  a  charge  of  having  perpetrated  the  murder,  and  commit- 
ted for  trial.  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  soon  after,  under  the  promise  of  favor  from  government, 
made  a  full  confession  of  the  crime,  and  the  circumstances  attending  it.  In  a  few  days  after 
this  disclosure  was  made,  Richard  Crowninshield,  who  was  supposed  to  have  been  the 
principal  assassin,  committed  suicide. 

A  special  session  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  ordered  by  the  Legislature,  for  the  trial  of 
the  Prisoners  at  Salem,  in  July.  At  that  time,  John  F.  Knapp  was  indicted  as  principal 
in  the  murder,  and  George  Crowninshield  and  Joseph  J.  Knapp  as  accessories. 

On  account  of  the  death  of  Chief  Justice  Parker,  which  occurred  on  the  26th  of  July, 
the  Court  adjourned  to  Tuesday,  the  3d  day  of  August,  when  it  proceeded  in  the  trial  of 
John  F.  Knapp.  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  being  called  upon,  refused  to  testify,  and  the  pledge  of 
the  Government  was  withdrawn. 

At  the  request  of  the  prosecuting  officers  of  the  Government,  Mr.  Webster  appeared  as 
counsel  and  assisted  in  the,  trial. 

Mr.  Dexter  addressed  the  Jury  on  behalf  of  the  Prisoner,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr. 
Webster,  in  the  following  Speech  : 

I  am  little  accustomed,  gentlemen,  to  the  part  which  I  am  now  at- 
tempting to  perform.  Hardly  more  than  once  or  twice,  has  it  hap- 
pened to  me  to  be  concerned,  on  the  side  of  the  government,  in  any 
criminal  prosecution  whatever;  and  never,  until  the  present  occasion, 
in  any  case  affecting  life. 

But  I  very  much  regret  that  it  should  have  been  thought  necessa- 
ry to  suggest  to  you,  that  I  am  brought  here  to  "  hurry  you  against 
the  law,  and  beyond  the  evidence."  I  hope  I  have  too  much  regard 
for  justice,  and  too  much  respect  for  my  own  character,  to  attempt 
either;  and  were  I  to  make  such  attempt,  I  am  sure,  that  in  this 
court,  nothing  can  be  carried  against  the  law,  and  that  gentlemen, 
intelligent  and  just  as  you  are,  are  not,  by  any  power,  to  be  hurried 
beyond  the  evidence.     Though  I  could  well  have  wished  to  shun 


451 

this  occasion,  I  have  not  felt  at  liberty  to  withhold  my  professional 
assistance,  when  it  is  supposed  that  I  might  be  in  some  degree  use- 
ful, in  investigating  and  discovering  the  truth,  respecting  this  most 
extraordinary  murder.  It  has  seemed  to  be  a  duty,  incumbent  on 
me,  as  on  every  other  citizen,  to  do  my  best,  and  my  utmost,  to 
bring  to  light  the  perpetrators  of  this  crime.  Against  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  as  an  individual,  I  cannot  have  the  slightest  prejudice. 
I  would  not  do  him  the  smallest  injury  or  injustice.  But  I  do  not 
affect  to  be  indifferent  to  the  discovery,  and  the  punishment  of  this 
deep  guilt.  I  cheerfully  share  in  the  opprobrium,  how  much  soever 
it  may  be,  which  is  cast  on  those  who  feel  and  manifest  an  anxious 
concern  that  all  who  had  a  part  in  planning,  or  a  hand  in  executing 
this  deed  of  midnight  assassination,  may  be  brought  to  answer  for 
their  enormous  crime,  at  the  bar  of  public  justice.  Gentlemen,  it 
is  a  most  extraordinary  case.  In  some  respects,  it  has  hardly  a 
precedent  anywhere;  certainly  none  in  our  New  England  history. 
This  bloody  drama  exhibited  no  suddenly  excited  ungovernable  rage. 
The  actors  in  it  were  not  surprised  by  any  lion-like  temptation 
springing  upon  their  virtue,  and  overcoming  it,  before  resistance 
could  begin.  Nor  did  they  do  the  deed  to  glut  savage  vengeance, 
or  satiate  long  settled  and  deadly  hate.  It  was  a  cool,  calculating, 
money-making  murder. — It  was  all  "  hire  and  salary,  not  revenge." 
It  was  the  weighing  of  money  against  life;  the  counting  out  of  so 
many  pieces  of  silver,  against  so  many  ounces  of  blood. 

An  aged  man,  without  an  enemy  in  the  world,  in  his  own  house, 
and  in  his  own  bed,  is  made  the  victim  of  a  butcherly  murder,  for 
mere  pay. — Truly,  here  is  a  new  lesson  for  painters  and  poets. 
Whoever  shall  hereafter  draw  the  portrait  of  murder,  if  he  will  show 
it  as  it  has  been  exhibited  in  an  example,  where  such  example  was 
last  to  have  been  looked  for,  in  the  very  bosom  of  our  New  England 
society,  let  him  not  give  it  the  grim  visage  of  Moloch,  the  brow 
knitted  by  revenge,  the  face  black  with  settled  hate,  and  the  blood- 
shot eye  emitting  livid  fires  of  malice.  Let  him  draw,  rather,  a 
decorous,  smoothfaced,  bloodless  demon;  a  picture  in  repose,  rather 
than  in  action;  not  so  much  an  example  of  human  nature,  in  its  de- 
pravity, and  in  its  paroxysms  of  crime,  as  an  infernal  nature,  a  fiend, 
in  the  ordinary  display  and  developement  of  his  character. 

The  deed  was  executed  with  a  degree  of  self-possession  and 
steadiness,  equal  to  the  wickedness  with  which  it  was  planned.  The 
circumstances,  now  clearly  in  evidence,  spread  out  the  whole  scene 
before  us.  Deep  sleep  had  fallen  on  the  destined  victim,  and  on  all 
beneath  his  roof.  A  healthful  old  man,  to  whom  sleep  was  sweet, 
the  first  sound  slumbers  of  the  night  held  him  in  their  soft  but  strong 
embrace.  The  assassin  enters,  through  the  window  already  pre- 
pared, into  an  unoccupied  apartment. — With  noiseless  foot  he  paces 
the  lonely  hall,  half  lighted  by  the  moon;  he  winds  up  the  ascent 
of  the  stairs,  and  reaches  the  door  of  the  chamber.  Of  this,  he 
moves  the  lock,  by  soft  and  continued  pressure,  till  it  turns  on  its 
hinges  without  noise;  and  he  enters,  and  beholds  his  victim  before 
him.  The  room  was  uncommonly  open  to  the  admission  of  light. 
The  face  of  the  innocent  sleeper  was  turned  from  the  murderer,  and 
the  beams  of  the  moon,  resting  on  the  gray  locks  of  his  aged  temple, 


452 

showed  him  where  to  strike.  The  fatal  blow  is  given!  and  the  victim 
passes,  without  a  struggle  or  a  motion,  from  the  repose  of  sleep  to  the 
repose  of  death !  It  is  the  assassin's  purpose  to  make  sure  work ;  and 
he  yet  plies  the  dagger,  though  it  was  obvious  that  life  had  been  de- 
stroyed by  the  blow  of  the  bludgeon. — He  even  raises  the  aged  arm, 
that  he  may  not  fail  yi  his  aim  at  the  heart,  and  replaces  it  again  over 
the  wounds  of  the  poniard!  To  finish  the  picture,  he  explores  the 
wrist  for  the  pulse!  He  feels  for  it,  and  ascertains  that  it  beats  no 
longer!  It  is  accomplished.  The  deed  is  done.  He  retreats,  re- 
traces his  steps  to  the  window,  passes  out  through  it  as  he  came  in, 
and  escapes.  He  has  done  the  murder — no  eye  has  seen  him,  no 
ear  has  heard  him.     The  secret  is  his  own,  and  it  is  safe! 

Ah!  gentlemen,  that  was  a  dreadful  mistake.  Such  a  secret  can 
be  safe  nowhere.  The  whole  creation  of  God  has  neither  nook 
nor  corner,  where  the  guilty  can  bestow  it,  and  say  it  is  safe.  Not 
to  speak  of  that  eye  which  glances  through  all  disguises,  and  be- 
holds everything,  as  in  the  splendor  of  noon, — such  secrets  of  guilt 
are  never  safe  from  detection,  even  by  men.  True  it  is,  generally 
speaking,  that  "  murder  will  out."  True  it  is,  that  Providence  hath 
so  ordained,  and  doth  so  govern  things,  that  those  who  break  the  great 
law  of  heaven,  by  shedding  man's  blood,  seldom  succeed  in  avoid- 
ing discovery.  Especially,  in  a  case  exciting  so  much  attention  as 
this,  discovery  must  come,  and  will  come,  sooner  or  later.  A  thou- 
sand eyes  turn  at  once  to  explore  every  man,  everything,  every  cir- 
cumstance, connected  with  the  time  and  place;  a  thousand  ears 
catch  every  whisper;  a  thousand  excited  minds  intensely  dwell  on 
the  scene,  shedding  all  their  light,  and  ready  to  kindle  the  slightest 
circumstance  into  a  blaze  of  discovery.  Meantime,  the  guilty  soul 
cannot  keep  its  own  secret.  It  is  false  to  itself;  or  rather  it  feels 
an  irresistible  impulse  of  conscience  to  be  true  to  itself.  It  labors 
under  its  guilty  possession,  and  knows  not  what  to  do  with  it. 
The  human  heart  was  not  made  for  the  residence  of  such  an  in- 
habitant. It  finds  itself  preyed  on  by  a  torment,  which  it  dares  not 
acknowledge  to  God  nor  man.  A  vulture  is  devouring  it,  and  it  can 
ask  no  sympathy  or  assistance,  either  from  heaven  or  earth.  The 
secret  which  the  murderer  possesses  soon  comes  to  possess  him; 
and,  like  the  evil  spirits  of  which  we  read,  it  overcomes  him,  and 
leads  him  whithersoever  it  will.  He  feels  it  beating  at  his  heart, 
rising  to  his  throat,  and  demanding  disclosure.  He  thinks  the 
whole  world  sees  it  in  his  face,  reads  it  in  his  eyes,  and  almost  hears 
its  workings  in  the  very  silence  of  his  thoughts.  It  has  become 
his  master.  It  betrays  his  discretion,  it  breaks  down  his  courage, 
it  conquers  his  prudence.  When  suspicions,  from  without,  begin 
to  embarrass  him,  and  the  net  of  circumstance  to  entangle  him, 
the  fatal  secret  struggles  with  still  greater  violence  to  burst  forth. 
It  must  be  confessed,  it  will  be  confessed,  there  is  no  refuge  from 
confession  but  suicide,  and  suicide  is  confession. 

Much  has  been  said,  on  this  occasion,  of  the  excitement  which 
'has  existed,  and  still  exists,  and  of  the  extraordinary  measures  taken 
to  discover  and  punish  the  guilty.  No  doubt  there  has  been,  and  is, 
«much  excitement,  and  strange  indeed  were  it,  had  it  been  otherwise. 
Should  not  all  the  peaceable  and  well  disposed  naturally  feel  con- 


453 

cerned,  and  naturally  exert  themselves  to  bring  to  punishment  the 
authors  of  this  secret  assassination?  Was  it  a  thing  to  be  slept  up- 
on or  forgotten?  Did  you,  gentlemen,  sleep  quite  as  quietly  in  your 
beds  after  this  murder  as  before  ?  Was  it  not  a  case  for  rewards, 
for  meetings,  for  committees,  for  the  united  efforts  of  all  the  good, 
to  find  out  a  band  of  murderous  conspirators,  of  midnight  ruffians, 
and  to  bring  them  to  the  bar  of  justice  and  law?  If  this  be  excite- 
ment, is  it  an  unnatural,  or  an  improper  excitement? 

It  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that  there  are  appearances  of  another 
feeling,  of  a  very  different  nature  and  character,  not  very  extensive 
I  would  hope,  but  still  there  is  too  much  evidence  of  its  existence. 
Such  is  human  nature,  that  some  persons  lose  their  abhorrence  of 
crime,  in  their  admiration  of  its  magnificent  exhibitions.  Ordinary 
vice  is  reprobated  by  them,  but  extraordinary  guilt,  exquisite  wicked- 
ness, the  high  flights  and  poetry  of  crime,  seize  on  the  imagination, 
and  lead  them  to  forget  the  depths  of  the  guilt,  in  admiration  of  the 
excellence  of  the  performance,  or  the  unequalled  atrocity  of  the  pur- 
pose. There  are  those  in  our  day,  who  have  made  great  use  of  this 
infirmity  of  our  nature;  and  by  means  of  it  done  infinite  injury  to 
the  cause  of  good  morals.  They  have  affected  not  only  the  taste, 
but  I  fear  also  the  principles,  of  the  young,  the  heedless,  and  the 
imaginative,  by  the  exhibition  of  interesting  and  beautiful  monsters. 
They  render  depravity  attractive,  sometimes  by  the  polish  of  its  man- 
ners, and  sometimes  by  its  very  extravagance;  and  study  to  show 
off  crime  under  all  the  advantages  of  cleverness  and  dexterity. 
Gentlemen,  this  is  an  extraordinary  murder — but  it  is  still  a  murder. 
We  are  not  to  lose  ourselves  in  wonder  at  its  origin,  or  in  gazing 
on  its  cool  and  skilful  execution.  We  are  to  detect  and  to  punish  it; 
and  while  we  proceed  with  caution  against  the  prisoner,  and  are  to 
be  sure  that  we  do  not  visit  on  his  head  the  offences  of  others,  we 
are  yef  to  consider  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  case  of  most  atrocious 
crime,  which  has  not  the  slightest  circumstance  about  it  to  soften 
its  enormity.     It  is  murder,  deliberate,  concerted,  malicious  murder. 

Although  the  interest  in  this  case  may  have  diminished  by  the  re- 
peated investigation  of  the  facts;  still,  the  additional  labor  which 
it  imposes  upon  all  concerned  is  not  to  be  regretted,  if  it  should  re- 
sult in  removing  all  doubts  of  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner. 

The  learned  counsel  for  the  prisoner  has  said  truly,  that  it  is 
your  individual  duty  to  judge  the  prisoner, — that  it  is  your  individual 
duty  to  determine  his  guilt  or  innocence — and  that  you  are  to  weigh 
the  testimony  with  candor  and  fairness.  But  much  at  the  same 
time  has  been  said,  which,  although  it  would  seem  to  have  no 
distinct  bearing  on  the  trial,  cannot  be  passed  over  without  some 
notice. 

A  tone  of  complaint  so  peculiar  has  been  indulged,  as  would 
almost  lead  us  to  doubt  whether  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  or  the  mana- 
gers of  this  prosecution,  are  now  on  trial.  Great  pains  have  been 
taken  to  complain  of  the  manner  of  the  prosecution.  We  hear  of 
getting  up  a  case; — of  setting  in  motion  trains  of  machinery; — of 
foul  testimony;  of  combinations  to  overwhelm  the  prisoner*; — of  pri- 
vate prosecutors; — that  the  prisoner  is  hunted,  persecuted,  driven  to 
his  trial; — that  everybody  is  against  him; — and  various  other  com- 


454 

plaints,  as  if  those  who  would  bring  to  punishment  the  authors  of 
this  murder  were  almost  as  bad  as  they  who  committed  it. 

In  the  course  of  my  whole  life,  I  have  never  heard  before,  so 
much  said  about  the  particular  counsel  who  happen  to  be  employed; 
as  if  it  were  extraordinary,  that  other  counsel  than  the  usual  of- 

UyAtj^iv  \  ficers  of  the  government  should  be  assisting  in  the  conducting  of  a 
case  on  the  part  of  the  government.  In  one  of  the  last  capital  trials 
in  this  county,  that  of  Jackman  for  "  the  Goodridge  robbery,"  (so 
called,)  I  remember  that  the  learned  head  of  the  Suffolk  Bar,  Mr. 
Prescott,  came  down  in  aid  of  the  officers  of  the  government.  This 
was  regarded  as  neither  strange  nor  improper.  The  counsel  for  the 
prisoner,  in  that  case,  contented  themselves  with  answering  his 
arguments,  as  far  as  they  were  able,  instead  of  carping  at  his 
presence. 

At  sL^vY  Complaint  is  made  that  rewards  were  offered,  in  this  case,  and 
*»•£&*>  temptations  held  out  to  obtain  testimony.  Are  not  rewards  always  of- 
fered, when  great  and  secret  offences  are  committed  ?  Rewards  were 
offered  in  the  case  to  which  I  have  alluded;  and  every  other  means 
taken  to  discover  the  offenders,  that  ingenuity,  or  the  most  perse- 
vering vigilance  could  suggest.  The  learned  counsel  have  suffered 
their  zeal  to  lead  them  into  a  strain  of  complaint,  at  the  manner  in 
which  the  perpetrators  of  this  crime  were  detected,  almost  indicating 
that  they  regard  it  as  a  positive  injury,  to  them,  to  have  found  out 
their  guilt.  Since  no  man  witnessed  it,  since  they  do  not  now  con- 
fess it,  attempts  to  discover  it  are  half  esteemed  as  officious  inter- 
meddling, and  impertinent  inquiry. 

It  is  said,  that  here  even  a  committee  of  vigilance  was  appointed. 
This  is  a  subject  of  reiterated  remark.  This  committee  are  point- 
ed at,  as  though  they  had  been  officiously  intermeddling  with  the 
administration  of  justice.  They  are  said  to  have  been  "laboring 
for  months"  against  the  prisoner.  Gentlemen,  what  must  we  do  in 
such  a  case?  Are  people  to  be  dumb  and  still,  through  fear  of  over- 
doing? Is  it  come  to  this,  that  an  effort  cannot  be  made,  a  hand  can- 
not be  lifted  to  discover  the  guilty,  without  its  being  said,  there  is  a 
combination  to  overwhelm  innocence  ?  Has  the  community  lost  all 
moral  sense?  Certainly,  a  community  that  would  not  be  roused  to 
action,  upon  an  occasion  such  as  this  was,  a  community  which  should 
not  deny  sleep  to  their  eyes,  and  slumber  to  their  eyelids,  till  they 
had  exhausted  all  the  means  of  discovery  and  detection,  must,  indeed, 
be  lost  to  all  moral  sense,  and  would  scarcely  deserve  protection 
from  the  laws.  The  learned  counsel  have  endeavoured  to  persuade 
you,  that  there  exists  a  prejudice  against  the  persons  accused  of 
this  murder.  They  would  have  you  understand  that  it  is  not  con- 
fined to  this  vicinity  alone; — but  that  even  the  Legislature  have 
caught  this  spirit.  That  through  the  procurement  of  the  gentleman, 
here  styled  private  prosecutor,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Senate,  a 
special  session  of  this  court  was  appointed  for  the  trial  of  these  of- 
fenders. That  the  ordinary  movements  of  the  wheels  of  justice 
were  too  slow  for  the  purposes  devised. — But  does  not  everybody 
see  and  know  that  it  was  matter  of  absolute  necessity  to  have 
a  special  session  of  the  court?  When,  or  how  could  the  prisoners 
have  been  tried  without  a  special  session?     In  the  ordinary  arrange- 


455 

ment  of  the  courts,  but  one  week,  in  a  year,  is  allotted  for  the 
whole  court  to  sit  in  this  county.  In  the  trial  of  all  capital  offences 
a  majority  of  the  court,  at  least,  are  required  to  be  present.  In  the 
trial  of  the  present  case  alone,  three  weeks  have  already  been  taken 
up.  Without  such  special  session,  then,  three  years  would  not  have 
been  sufficient  for  the  purpose.  It  is  answer  sufficient  to  all  com- 
plaints on  this  subject,  to  say,  that  the  law  was  drawn  by  the  late 
chief  justice  himself,  to  enable  the  court  to  accomplish  its  duties; 
and  to  afford  the  persons  accused  an  opportunity  for  trial  without 
delay. 

Again,  it  is  said,  that  it  was  not  thought  df  making  Francis  Knapp,    x. 

the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  a  principal  till  after  the  death  of  Richard .  *r 

Crowninshieldjun.;  that  the  present  indictment  is  an  afterthought — \/e\/x 
that  "testimony  was  got  up"  for  the  occasion.  It  is  not  so.  There 
is  no  authority  for  this  suggestion.  The  case  of  the  Knapps  had 
not  then  been  before  the  grand  jury.  The  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment did  not  know  what  the  testimony  would  be  against  them. 
They  could  not  therefore  have  determined  what  course  they  should 
pursue.  They  intended  to  arraign  all  as  principals,  who  should 
appear  to  have  been  principals;  and  all  as  accessories,  who  should 
appear  to  have  been  accessories.  All  this  could  be  known  only 
when  the  evidence  should  be  produced. 

But  the  learned  counsel  for  the  defendant  take  a  somewhat  loftier 
flight  still.  They  are  more  concerned,  they  assure  us,  for  the  law 
itself,  than  even  for  their  client.  Your  decision,  in  this  case,  they 
say,  will  stand  as  a  precedent.  Gentlemen,  we  hope  it  will.  We  '"  A 
hope  it  will  be  a  precedent,  both  of  candor  and  intelligence,  of  fair- 
ness and  of  firmness;  a  precedent  of  good  sense  and  honest  purpose, 
pursuing  their  investigation  discreetly,  rejecting  loose  generalities, 
exploring  all  the  circumstances,  weighing  each,  in  search  of  truth, 
and  embracing  and  declaring  the  truth,  when  found. 

It  is  said,  that  "laws  are  made,  not  for  the  punishment  of  the  guil- 
ty, but  for  the  protection  of  the  innocent. "  This  is  not  quite  accurate 
perhaps,  but  if  so,  we  hope  they  will  be  so  administered  as  to  give 
that  protection.  But  who  are  the  innocent,  whom  the  law  would  ,wG 
protect?  Gentlemen,  Joseph  White  was  innocent.  They  are  in- 
nocent who  having  lived  in  the  fear  of  God,  through  the  day,  wish 
to  sleep  in  his  peace  through  the  night,  in  their  own  beds.  The  law 
is  established,  that  those  who  live  quietly,  may  sleep  quietly;  that 
they  who  do  no  harm,  may  feel  none.  The  gentleman  can  think  of 
none  that  are  innocent,  except  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  not  yet  con- 
victed. Is  a  proved  conspirator  to  murder,  innocent?  Are  the 
Crowninshields  and  the  Knapps,  innocent?  What  is  innocence? 
How  deep  stained  with  blood, — how  reckless  in  crime, — how  deep 
in  depravity,  may  it  be,  and  yet  remain  innocence?  The  law  is 
made,  if  we  would  speak  with  entire  accuracy,  to  protect  the  inno- 
cent, by  punishing  the  guilty.  But  there  are  those  innocent,  out 
of  court  as  well  as  in; — innocent  citizens  not  suspected  of  crime, 
as  well  as  innocent  prisoners  at  the  bar. 

The  criminal  law  is  not  founded  in  a  principle  of  vengeance.  It 
does  not  punish,  that  it  may  inflict  suffering.  The  humanity  of  the 
law  feels  and  regrets,  every  pain  it  causes,  every  hour  of  restraint 


r 


456 

.A-     it  imposes,  and  more  deeply  still,  every  life  it  forfeits.     But  it  uses 
evil,  as  the  means  of  preventing  greater  evil.     It  seeks  to  deter 

kA  n^  from  crime,  by  the  example  of  punishment.  This  is  its  true,  and 
only  true  main  object.     It  restrains  the  liberty  of  the  few  offenders, 

vi/  \***$  tliat  the  many  who  do  not  offend,  may  enjoy  their  own  liberty.  It 
forfeits  the  life  of  the  murderer,  that  other  murders  may  not  be 
committed.  The  law  might  open  the  jails,  and  at  once  set  free 
all  persons  accused  of  offences,  and  it  ought  to  do  so,  if  it  could 
be  made  certain  that  no  other  offences  would  hereafter  be  com- 
mitted. Because,  it  punishes,  not  to  satisfy  any  desire  to  inflict 
pain,  but  simply  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  crimes.  When  the 
guilty,  therefore,  are  not  punished,  the  law  has,  so  far,  failed  of  its 
purpose;  the  safety  of  the  innocent  is,  so  far,  endangered.  Every 
unpunished  murder  takes  away  something  from  the  security  of  every 
man's  life.  And  whenever  a  jury,  through  whimsical  and  ill- 
founded  scruples,  suffer  the  guilty  to  escape,  they  make  themselves 
answerable  for  the  augmented  danger  of  the  innocent. 

We  wish  nothing  to  be  strained  against  this  defendant.  Why 
then  all  this  alarm?  Why  all  this  complaint  against  the  manner  in 
which  the  crime  is  discovered?  The  prisoner's  counsel  catch  at 
supposed  flaws  of  evidence,  or  bad  character  of  witnesses,  without 
meeting  the  case.  Do  they  mean  to  deny  the  conspiracy?  Do 
they  mean  to  deny  that  the  two  Crowninshields  and  the  two  Knapps 
were  conspirators?  Why  do  they  rail  against  Palmer,  while  they 
do  not  disprove,  and  hardly  dispute  the  truth  of  any  one  fact  sworn 
to  by  him  ?  Instead  of  this,  it  is  made  matter  of  sentimentality,  that 
Palmer  has  been  prevailed  upon  to  betray  his  bosom  companions, 
and  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  friendship:  again,  I  ask,  why  do  they 
not  meet  the  case?  If  the  fact  is  out,  why  not  meet  it?  Do  they 
mean  to  deny  that  Capt.  White  is  dead?  One  should  have  almost 
supposed  even  that,  from  some  remarks  that  have  been  made.  Do 
they  mean  to  deny  the  conspiracy?  Or,  admitting  a  conspiracy,  do 
they  mean  to  deny  only,  that  Frank  Knapp,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
was  abetting  in  the  murder,  being  present,  and  so  deny  that  he  was 
a  principal  ?  If  a  conspiracy  is  proved,  it  bears  closely  upon  every 
subsequent  subject  of  inquiry.  Why  don't  they  come  to  the  fact? 
Here  the  defence  is  wholly  indistinct.  The  counsel  neither  take  the 
ground,  nor  abandon  it.  They  neither  fly,  nor  light.  They  hover. 
But  they  must  come  to  a  closer  mode  of  contest.  They  must  meet 
the  facts,  and  either  deny  or  admit  them.  Had  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  then,  a  knowledge  of  this  conspiracy  or  not?  This  is  the  ques- 
tion. Instead  of  laying  out  their  strength  in  complaining  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  deed  is  discovered, — of  the  extraordinary  pains 
taken  to  bring  the  prisoner's  guilt  to  light; — would  it  not  be  better 
to  show  there  was  no  guilt?  Would  it  not  be  better  to  show  his 
innocence?  They  say,  and  they  complain,  that  the  community  feel 
a  great  desire  that  he  should  be  punished  for  his  crimes; — would 
it  not  be  better  to  convince  you  that  he  has  committed  no  crime? 

Gentlemen,  let  us  now  come  to  the  case.  Your  first  inquiryr  on 
the  evidence,  will  be, — was  Capt.  White  murdered  in  pursuance  of 


457 

a  conspiracy,  and  was  the  defendant  one  of  this  conspiracy  ?  If  so, 
the  second  inquiry  is,  was  he  so  connected  with  the  murder  itself 
as  that  he  is  liable  to  be  convicted  as  a  principal!  The  defendant 
is  indicted  as  a  principal.  If  not  guilty  as  such,  you  cannot  convict 
him.  The  indictment  contains  three  distinct  classes  of  counts.  In 
the  first,  he  is  charged  as  having  done  the  deed,  with  his  own  hand; — 
in  the  second,  as  an  aider  and  abettor  to  Richard  Crowninshield,  jr. 
who  did  the  deed; — in  the  third,  as  an  aider  and  abettor  to  some  per- 
son unknown.  If  you  believe  him  guilty  on  either  of  these  counts, 
or  in  either  of  these  ways,  you  must  convict  him. 

It  may  be  proper  to  say,  as  a  preliminary  remark,  that  there  are  *u 
two  extraordinary  circumstances  attending  this  trial.  One  is,  that 
Richard  Crowninshield,  jr.,  the  supposed  immediate  perpetrator  of 
the  murder,  since  his  arrest,  has  committed  suicide.  He  has  gone 
to  answer  before  a  tribunal  of  perfect  infallibility.  The  other  is, 
that  Joseph  Knapp,  the  supposed  origin  and  planner  of  the  murder, 
having  once  made  a  full  disclosure  of  the  facts,  under  a  promise  of 
indemnity,  is,  nevertheless,  not  now  a  witness.  Notwithstanding 
his  disclosure,  and  his  promise  of  indemnity,  he  now  refuses  to  tes- 
tify. He  chooses  to  return  to  his  original  state,  and  now  stands 
answerable  himself,  when  the  time  shall  come  for  his  trial.  These 
circumstances  it  is  fit  you  should  remember,  in  your  investigation 
of  the  case. 

Your  decision  may  affect  more  than  the  life  of  this  defendant.  If 
he  be  not  convicted  as  principal,  no  one  can  be.  Nor  can  any  one 
be  convicted  of  a  participation  in  the  crime  as  accessory.  The 
Knapps  and  George  Crowninshield  will  be  again  on  the  community. 
This  shows  the  importance  of  the  duty  you  have  to  perform; — and  ***  *" 
to  remind  you  of  the  degree  of  care  and  wisdom,  necessary  to  be 
exercised  in  its  performance.  But  certainly  these  considerations 
do  not  render  the  prisoner's  guilt  any  clearer,  nor  enhance  the 
weight  of  the  evidence  against  him.  No  one  desires  you  to  regard  'v'v 
consequences  in  that  light.  No  one  wishes  anything  to  be  strained,  ^ 
or  too  far  pressed  against  the  prisoner.  Still,  it  is  fit  you  should 
see  the  full  importance  of  the  duty  devolved  upon  you.  „  And  now, 
gentlemen,  in  examining  this  evidence,  let  us  begin  at  the  beginning, 
and  see  first  what  we  know  independent  of  the  disputed  testimony.. 
This  is  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence.  And  these  circumstan- 
ces, we  think,  are  full  and  satisfactory.  The  case  mainly  depends 
upon  them,  and  it  is  common,  that  offences  of  this  kind,  must  be 
proved  in  this  way.  Midnight  assassins  take  no  witnesses.  The 
evidence  of  the  facts  relied  on  has  been,  somewhat  sneeringly,  de- 
nominated by  the  learned  counsel,  "  circumstantial  stuff,''''  but,  it  is 
not  such  stuff  as  dreams  are  made  of.  Why  does  he  not  rend  this 
stuff?  Why  does  he  not  tear  it  away,  with  the  crush  of  his  hand.  He 
dismisses  it,  a  little  too  summarily.  It  shall  be  my  business  to  exam- 
ine this  stuff  and  try  its  cohesion.  /% 

The  letter  from  Palmer  at  Belfast,  is  that  no  more  than  flimsy     f)  l 
stuff? 

The  fabricated  letters,  from  Knapp  to  the  committee,  and  Mr_^___ 
White,  are  they  nothing  but  stuff? 

58  pp 


458 

The  circumstance,  that  the  housekeeper  was  away  at  the  time  the 
,  murder  was  committed,  as  it  was  agreed  she  would  be,  is  that,  too,  a 
u'^l        useless  piece  of  the  same  stuff? 

The  facts,  that  the  key  of  the  chamber  door  was  taken  out  and 
k***'       secreted;  that  the  window  was  unbarred  and  unbolted;  are  these  to  /\sA 
j-  be  so  slightly  and  so  easily  disposed  of?  — 1u         a 

\X>~*- ""■      It  is  necessary,  gentlemen,  now  to  settle,  at  the  commencement,  10+^r 
\    n  Xv  the  great  question  of  a  conspiracy.     If  there  was  none,  or  the  defen- 
v-  Ju     ujtSjant  was  not  a  Party>  tnen  there  is  no  evidence  here  to  convict  him. 
If  there  was  a  conspiracy,  and  he  is  proved  to  have  been  a  party, 
then  these  two  facts  have  a  strong  bearing  on  others  and  all  the  great 
k*>'     points  of  inquiry.     The  defendant's  counsel  take  no  distinct  ground, 
as  I  have  already  said,  on  this  point,  neither  to  admit,  nor  to  deny. 
They  choose  to  confine  themselves  to  a  hypothetical  mode  of  speech. 
They  say,  supposing  there  was  a  conspiracy,  non  sequitur,  that  the 
prisoner  is  guilty,  as  principal.     Be  it  so.     But  still,  if  there  was  a 
conspiracy,  and  if  he  was  a  conspirator,  and  helped  to  plan  the  mur- 
der, this  may  shed  much  light  on  the  evidence,  which  goes  to  charge 
him  with  the  execution  of  that  plan. 

We  mean  to  make  out  the  conspiracy;  and  that  the  defendant 
was  a  party  to  it;  and  then  to  draw  all  just  inferences  from  these 
facts. 

Let  me  ask  your  attention,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  those  appear- 
ances, on  the  morning  after  the  murder,  which  have  a  tendency  to 
show,  that  it  was  done  in  pursuance  of  a  preconcerted  plan  of  ope- 
ration. What  are  they  ?  A  man  was  found  murdered  in  his  bed. — 
No  stranger  had  done  the  deed — no  one  unacquainted  with  the  house 
had  done  it. — It  was  apparent,  that  somebody  from  within  had  open- 
ed, and  somebody  from  without  had  entered. — There  had  been  there, 
obviously  and  certainly,  concert  and  cooperation.  The  inmates  of  the 
house  were  not  alarmed  when  the  murder  was  perpetrated.  The  as- 
sassin had  entered,  without  any  riot,  or  any  violence.  He  had  found 
the  way  prepared  before  him.  The  house  had  been  previously  open- 
ed. The  window  was  unbarred,  from  within,  and  its  fastening  un- 
screwed. There  was  a  lock  on  the  door  of  the  chamber,  in  which 
]\Ir.  White  slept,  but  the  key  was  gone.  It  had  been  taken  away, 
and  secreted.  The  footsteps  of  the  murderer  were  visible,  out  doors, 
tending  toward  the  window.  The  plank  by  which  he  entered  the 
window,  still  remained.  The  road  he  pursued  had  been  thus  pre- 
pared for  him.  The  victim  was  slain,  and  the  murderer  had  escaped. 
Everything  indicated  that  somebody  from  within  had  cooperated 
with  somebody  from  without.  Everything  proclaimed  that  some  of  the 
inmates,  or  somebody  having  access  to  the  house,  had  had  a  hand  in 
the  murder.  On  the  face  of  the  circumstances,  it  was  apparent, 
therefore,  that  this  was  a  premeditated,  concerted,  conspired  murder. 
Who  then  were  the  conspirators?  If  not  now  found  out,  we  are 
still  groping  in  the  dark,  and  the  whole  tragedy  is  still  a  mystery. 

If  the  Knapps  and  the  Crowninshields  were  not  the  conspirators, 
in  this  murder,  then  there  is  a  whole  set  of  conspirators  yet  not  dis- 
covered. Because,  independent  of  the  testimony  of  Palmer  and 
Leighton,  independent  of  all  disputed  evidence,  we  know,  from  un- 
controverted  facts,  that  this  murder  was,  and  must  have  been,  the 


result  of  concert  and  cooperation,  between  two  or  more.    W/e  know  ^^ 
it  was  not  done,  without  plan  and  deliberation;  we  see,  that  whoever     ^  ^ 
entered  the  house,  to  strike  the  blow,  was  favored  and  aided  by 
some  one,  who  had  been  previously  in  the  house,  without  suspicion, 
and  who  had  prepared  the  way.     This  is  concert,  this  is  coopera- 
tion, this  is  conspiracy.     If  the  Knapps  and  the  Crowninshields, 
then,  were  not  the  conspirators,  who  were?     Joseph  Knapp  had  a 
motive  to  desire  the  death  of  Mr.  White,  and  that  motive  has  been 4 
shown.  -'  .     n 

He  was  connected  by  marriage  in  the  family  of  Mr.  White.  His  y-'"" 
wife  was  the  daughter  of  Mrs.  Beckford,  who  was  the  only  child  of  /ti-^ 
a  sister  of  the  deceased.  The  deceased  was  more  than  eighty  years 
old,  and  he  had  no  children. — His  only  heirs  were  nephews  and 
neices. — He  wassupposedtobe  possessed  of  a  very  large  fortune, — 
which  would  have  descended,  by  law,  to  his  several  nephews  and 
neices  in  equal  shares,  or,  if  there  was  a  will,  then  according  to  the 
will.  But  as  Capt.  White  had  but  two  branches  of  heirs — the  chil- 
dren of  his  brother  Henry  White,  and  of  Mrs.  Beckford — according 
to  the  common  idea  each  of  these  branches  would  have  shared  one 
half  of  Mr.  White's  property. 

This  popular  idea  is  not  legally  correct.  But  it  is  common,  and 
very  probably  was  entertained  by  the  parties.  According  to  this,  sjj^ 
Mrs.  Beckford,  on  Mr.  White's  death,  without  a  will,  would  have 
been  entitled  to  one  half  of  Mr.  Wrhite's  ample  fortune;  and  Joseph 
Knapp  had  married  one  of  her  three  children.  There  was  a  will, 
and  this  will  gave  the  bulk  of  the  property  to  others;  and  we  learn 
from  Palmer  that  one  part  of  the  design  was  to  destroy  the  will  be- 
fore the  murder  was  committed.  There  had  been  a  previous  will,  ^«* 
and  that  previous  will  was  known  or  believed  to  have  been  more 
favorable  than  the  other,  to  the  Beckford  family.  So  that  by  destroyj.jj^ 
ing  the  last  will,  and  destroying  the  life  of  the  testator  at  the  same 
time,  either  the  first  and  more  favorable  will  would  be  set  up,  or  the 
deceased  would  have  no  will,  which  would  be,  as  was  supposed,  still 
more  favorable.  But  the  conspirators  not  having  succeeded  in  ob- 
taining and  destroying  the  last  will,  though  they  accomplished  the 
murder,  but  the  last  will  being  found  in  existence  and  safe,  and  that 
will  bequeathing  the  mass  of  the  property  to  others,  it  seemed,  at  the 
time,  impossible  for  Joseph  Knapp,  as  for  any  one  else,  indeed,  but 
the  principal  devisee,  to  have  any  motive  which  should  lead  to  the 
murder.  The  key  which  unlocks  the  whole  mystery,  is,  the  know- 
ledge of  the  intention  of  the  conspirators  to  steal  the  will.  This  is 
derived  from  Palmer,  and  it  explains  all.  It  solves  the  whole  mar- 
vel. It  shows  the  motive  actuating  those,  against  whom  there  is 
much  evidence,  but  who,  without  the  knowledge  of  this  intention, 
were  not  seen  to  have  had  a  motive.  This  intention  is  proved,  as  I 
have  said,  by  Palmer;  and  it  is  so  congruous  with  all  the  rest  of  the 
case,  it  agrees  so  well  with  all  facts  and  circumstances,  that  no  man 
could  well  withhold  his  belief,  though  the  facts  were  stated  by  a 
still  less  credible  witness.  If  one,  desirous  of  opening  a  lock,  turns 
over  and  tries  a  bunch  of  keys  till  he  finds  one  that  will 
he  naturally  supposes  he  has  found  the  key  of  that  lock.  S< 
plaining  circumstances  of  evidence,  which  are  apparently  irrecon- 


ieu   uy   a. 
ck, turns  j 
open   it,  I 
So  in  ex-  \ 


460 

cilable,  or  unaccountable,  if  a  fact  be  suggested,  which  at  once  ac- 
counts for  all,  and  reconciles  all,  by  whomsoever  it  may  be  stated, 
it  is  still  difficult  not  to  believe  that  such  fact  is  the  true  fact  be- 
longing to  the  case.  In  this  respect,  Palmer's  testimony  is  singularly 
confirmed.  If  he  were  false,  then  his  ingenuity  could  not  furnish  us 
such  clear  exposition  of  strange  appearing  circumstances.  Some 
truth,  not  before  known,  can  alone  do  that. 

When  we  look  back,  then,  to  the  state  of  things  immediately  on 
the  discovery  of  the  murder,  we  see  that  suspicion  would  naturally 
turn  at  once,  not  to  the  heirs  at  law,  but  to  those  principally  bene- 
fited by  the  will.  They,  and  they  alone,  would  be  supposed  or 
seem  to  have  a  direct  object,  for  wishing  Mr.  White's  life  to  be 
terminated.  And  strange  as  it  may  seem,  we  find  counsel  now  in- 
sisting, that  if  no  apology,  it  is  yet  mitigation  of  the  atrocity  of  the 
vwN-  Knapps'  conduct,  in  attempting  to  charge  this  foul  murder  on  Mr. 
White,  the  nephew  and  principal  devisee,  that  public  suspicion  was 
1  already  so  directed!  As  if  assassination  of  character  were  excusa- 
ble, in  proportion  as  circumstances  may  render  it  easy.  Their  en- 
deavours, when  they  knew  they  were  suspected  themselves,  to  fix  the 
charge  on  others,  by  foul  means  and  by  falsehood,  are  fair  and  strong 
proof  of  their  own  guilt.      But  more  of  that,  hereafter. 

The  counsel  say  that  they  might  safely  admit,  that  Richard  Crown- 
inshield,  jr.  was  the  perpetrator  of  this  murder. 

But  how  could  they  safely  admit  that  ?     If  that  were  admitted, 

i everything  else  would  follow.  For  why  should  Richard  Crownin- 
shield, jr.  kill  Mr.  White  ?  He  was  not  his  heir,  nor  his  devisee;  nor 
was  he  his  enemy.  What  could  be  his  motive  ?  If  Richard  Crown- 
*  inshield,  jr.  killed  Mr.  White,  he  did  it,  at  some  one's  procurement 
who  himself  had  a  motive.  And  who,  having  any  motive,  is  shown 
to  have  had  any  intercourse  with  Richard  Crowninshield,  jr.  but  Jo- 
seph Knapp,  and  this,  principally  through  the  agency  of  the  prison- 
er at  the  bar? — It  is  the  infirmity,  the  distressing  difficulty  of  the 
prisoner's  case,  that  his  counsel  cannot  and  dare  not  admit  what 
they  yet  cannot  disprove  and  what  all  must  believe.  He  who  believes, 
on  this  evidence,  that  Richard  Crowninshield,  jr.  was  the  immediate 
murderer,  cannot  doubt  that  both  the  Knapps  were  conspirators  in 
that  murder.  The  counsel,  therefore,  are  wrong,  I  think,  in  saying 
they  might  safely  admit  this.  The  admission  of  so  important,  and 
so  connected  a  fact,  would  render  it  impossible  to  contend  further 
against  the  proof  of  the  entire  conspiracy,  as  we  state  it. 

What,  then,  was  this  conspiracy?     J.  J.  Knapp,  jr.  desirous  of 
/"destroying  the  will,  and  of  taking  the  life  of  the  deceased,  hired  a 
1    /ruffian,  who  with  the  aid  of  other  ruffians,  were  to  enter  the  house, 
>    }        f  and  murder  him,  in  his  own  bed. 

As  far  back  as  January,  this  conspiracy  began.  Endicott  testifies 
to  a  conversation  with  J.  J.  Knapp,  at  that  time,  in  which  Knapp  told 
him  that  Capt.  White  had  made  a  will,  and  given  the  principal  part  of 
his  property  to  Stephen  White.  When  asked  how  he  knew,  he  said 
"  black  and  white  don't  lie."  When  asked,  if  the  will  was  not  lock- 
ed up,  he  said  "  there  is  such  a  thing  as  two  keys  to  the  same  lock." 
And  speaking  of  the  then  late  illness  of  Capt.  White,  he  said,  that 
Stephen  White  would  not  have  been  sent  for,  if  he  had  been  there. 


461 

Hence  it  appears,  that  as  early  as  January,  Knapp  had  a  know- 
ledge of  the  will,  and  that  he  had  access  to  it,  by  means  of  false 
keys.     This  knowledge  of  the  will,  and  an  intent  to  destroy  it,  ap-'ViA**** 
pear  also  from  Palmer's  testimony — a  fact  disclosed  to  him  by  the 
other  conspirators.     He  says,  that  he  was  informed  of  this  by  the       ,    , 
Crowninshields  on  the  2d  of  April.     But,  then,  it  is  said  that  Pal-^j 
mer  is  not  to  be  credited;  that  by  his  own  confession  he  is  a  felon ;^7l  <> 
that  he  has  been  in  the  state  prison  in  Maine;  and  above  all,  that  *^*aJ 
he  was  an  inmate  and  associate  with  these  conspirators  themselves.  L/-^ 
Let  us  admit  these  facts.     Let  us  admit  him  to  be  as  bad  as  they-ijHj^ 
would  represent  him  to  be;  still,  in  law,  he  is  a  competent  witness. ^Til- 
How  else  are  the  secret  designs  of  the  wicked  to  be  proved,  but  by%^^ 
their  wicked  companions,  to  whom  they  have  disclosed  them?     The   ^\. 
government  does  not  select  its  witnesses.     The  conspirators  them-  " 
selves  have  chosen  Palmer.     He  was  the  confidant  of  the   prison-  ^     J 
ers.     The  fact,  however,  does  not  depend  on  his  testimony  alone. 
It  is  corroborated  by  other  proof;  and,  taken  in  connexion  with  the 
other  circumstances,  it  has  strong  probability.     In  regard  to  the  tes- 
timony of  Palmer,  generally, — it  may  be  said,  that  it  is  less  contra- 
dicted, in  all  parts  of  it,  either  by  himself  or  others,  than  that  of  any 
other  material  witness,  and  that  everything  he  has  told,  has  been 
corroborated  by  other  evidence,  so  far  as  it  was  susceptible  of  con- 
firmation.    An  attempt  has  been  made  to  impair  his  testimony,  as  to 
his  being  at  the  half-way  house,  on  the  night  of  the  murder; — you 
have  seen  with  what  success.     Mr.  Babb  is  called  to  contradict  him: 
you  have  seen  how  little  he  knows,  and  even  that  not  certainly; 
for  he,  himself,  is  proved  to  have  been  in  an  error,  by  supposing  him 
to  have  been  at  the  half-way  house  on  the  evening  of  the  9th  of 
April.     At  that  time,  Palmer  is  proved  to  have  been  at  Dustin's  in 
Danvers.     If,  then,  Palmer,  bad  as  he  is,  has  disclosed  the  secrets 
of  the  conspiracy,  and  has  told  the  truth — there  is  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  believed.     Truth  is  truth,  come  whence  it  may. 

The  facts  show,  that  this  murder  had  been  long  in  agitation,  that 
it  was  not  a  new  proposition,  on  the  2d  of  April;  that  it  had  been 
contemplated  for  five  or  six  weeks  before.  R.  Crowninshield  was 
at  Wenham  in  the  latter  part  of  March,  as  testified  by  Starrett. 
F.  Knapp  was  at  Danvers,  in  the  latter  part  of  February,  as  testi- 
fied by  Allen.  R.  Crowninshield  inquired  whether  Capt.  Knapp 
was  about  home,  when  at  Wenham.  The  probability  is,  that  they 
would  open  the  case  to  Palmer,  as  a  new  project.  There  are  other 
circumstances  that  show  it  to  have  been  some  weeks  in  agitation. 
Palmer's  testimony  as  to  the  transactions  on  the  2d  of  April,  is  cor- 
roborated by  Allen,  and  by  Osborn's  books.  He  says  that  F.  Knapp 
came  there  in  the  afternoon,  and  again  in  the  evening.  So  the 
book  shows.  He  says  that  Capt.  White  had  gone  out  to  his  farm 
on  that  day.  So  others  prove.  How  could  this  fact,  or  these  facts, 
have  been  known  to  Palmer,  unless  F.  Knapp  had  brought  the 
knowledge  ?  and  was  it  not  the  special  object  of  this  visit,  to  give 
information  of  this  fact,  that  they  might  meet  him  and  execute  their 
purpose  on  his  return  from  his  farm?  The  letter  of  Palmer,  written 
at  Belfast,  has  intrinsic  evidence  of  genuineness.     It  was  mailed  at 


462 

Belfast,  May  13th.     It  states  facts  that  he  could  not  have  known, 
V  unless  his  testimon 


"unless  his  testimony  be  true.     This  letter  was  not  an  afterthought; 

L*A*'^.it  is  a  genuine   narrative.     In  fact,  it  says,  "  I  know  the  business 

your  brother  Frank  was  transacting  on  the  2d  of  April  :"  how  could 

"jy\%A    he  have   possibly  known  this,  unless   he   had   been   there?     The 

"  $1000,  that  was  to  be  paid  ;"  where  could  he  have  obtained  this 

\  V"     knowledge  ?     The  testimony  of  Endicott,  of  Palmer,  and  these  facts, 

are  to  be  taken   together  ;   and  they,  most  clearly,  show,  that  the 

death  of  Capt.  White  must  have  been  caused  by  somebody  interested 

in  putting  an  end  to  his  life. 

As  to  the  testimony  of  Leighton.  As  far  as  manner  of  testifying 
goes,  he  is  a  bad  witness  : — but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  he 
is  not  to  be  believed.     There  are  some  strange  things  about  him. 

/It  is  strange,  that  he  should  make  up  a  story  against  Capt.  Knapp, 
the  person  with  whom  he  lived  ; — that  he  never  voluntarily  told  any- 
thing :  all  that  he  has  said  is  screwed  out  of  him.  The  story 
could  not  have  been  invented  by  him  ;  his  character  for  truth  is  un- 
impeached  ;  and  he  intimated  to  another  witness,  soon  after  the 
murder  happened,  that  he  knew  something  he  should  not  tell. 
There  is  not  the  least  contradiction  in  his  testimony,  though  he 
gives  a  poor  account  of  withholding  it.  He  says  that  he  was  ex- 
tremely bothered  by  those  who  questioned  him.  In  the  main  story 
that  he  relates,  he  is  universally  consistent  with  himself:  Some 
things  are  for  him,  and  some  against  him.  Examine  the  intrinsic 
probability  of  what  he  says.  See  if  some  allowance  is  not  to  be 
made  for  him,  on  account  of  his  ignorance,  with  things  of  this  kind. 
It  is  said  to  be  extraordinary,  that  he  should  have  heard  just  so 
much  of  the  conversation  and  no  more  ;  that  he  should  have  heard 
just  what  was  necessary  to  be  proved,  and  nothing  else.  Admit  that 
this  is  extraordinary  ;  still,  this  does  not  prove  it  not  true.  It  is  ex- 
traordinary, that  you  twelve  gentlemen  should  be  called  upon,  out  of 
all  the  men  in  the  county,  to  decide  this  case  :  no  one  could  have 
foretold  this,  three  weeks  since.  It  is  extraordinary,  that  the  first 
clue  to  this  conspiracy,  should  have  been  derived  from  information 
given  by  the  father  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  And  in  every  case 
that  comes  to  trial,  there  are  many  things  extraordinary.  The  mur- 
der itself  in  this  case  is  an  extraordinary  one  ;  but  still  we  do  not 
<loubt  its  reality. 

It  is  argued,  that  this  conversation  between  Joseph  and  Frank, 
could  not  have  been,  as  Leighton  has  testified,  because  they  had 
been  together  for  several  hours  before, — this  subject  must  have  been 
uppermost  in  their  minds,— -whereas  this  appears  to  have  been  the 
commencement  of  their  conversation  upon  it.  Now,  this  depends 
altogether  upon  the  tone  and  manner  of  the  expression  ;  upon  the 
particular  word  in  the  sentence,  which  was  emphatically  spoken. 
If  he  had  said,  "When  did  you  see  Dick,  Frank  ?" — this  would  not 
seem  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  conversation.  With  what  empha- 
sis it  was  uttered,  it  is  not  possible  to  learn  ;  and  therefore  nothing 
can  be  made  of  this  argument.  If  this  boy's  testimony  stood 
alone,  it  should  be  received  with  caution.  And  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  testimony  of  Palmer.  But  they  do  not  stand  alone. 
They  furnish  a  clue  to  numerous  other  circumstances,  which,  when 


463 

known,  react  in  corroborating  what  would  have  been  received  with 
caution,  until  thus  corroborated.  How  could  Leighton  have  made 
up  this  conversation  :  "  When  did  you  see  Dick  ?"  "  I  saw  him 
this  morning."  "  When  is  he  going  to  kill  the  old  man."  "  I  don't 
know."  "  Tell  him  if  he  don't  do  it  soon,  I  won't  pay  him."  Here 
is  a  vast  amount,  in  few  words.  Had  he  wit  enough  to  invent  this? 
There  is  nothing  so  powerful  as  truth;  and  often  nothing  so  strange. 
It  is  not  even  suggested  that  the  story  was  made  for  him.  There  is 
nothing  so  extraordinary  in  the  whole  matter,  as  it  would  have  been 
for  this  country  boy  to  have  invented  this  story. 

The  acts  of  the  parties  themselves,  furnish  strong  presumption  of 
their  guilt.  What  was  done  on  the  receipt  of  the  letter  from  Maine? 
This  letter  was  signed  by  Charles  Grant,  jr.  a  person  not  known  to  >  i  I 
either  of  the  Knapps, — nor  was  it  known  to  them,  that  any  other 
person,  beside  the  Crowninshields,  knew  of  the  conspiracy.  This fcu*-^ 
letter,  by  the  accidental  omission  of  the  word  jr.  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  father,  when  intended  for  the  son.  The  father  carried  it  to 
Wenham  where  both  the  sons  were.  They  both  read  it.  Fix  your* c 
eye  steadily,  on  this  part  of  the  circumstantial  stuff,  which  is  in  the 
case  ;  and  see  what  can  be  made  of  it.  This  was  shown  to  the  two 
brothers  on  Saturday,  15th  of  May.  They,  neither  of  them,  knew 
Palmer.  And  if  they  had  known  him,  they  could  not  have  known 
him  to  have  been  the  writer  of  this  letter.  It  was  mysterious  to 
them,  how  any  one,  at  Belfast,  could  have  had  knowledge  of  this 
affair.  Their  conscious  guilt  prevented  due  circumspection.  They 
did  not  see  the  bearing  of  its  publication.  They  advised  their 
father  to  carry  it  to  the  committee  of  vigilance,  and  it  was  so  carried. 
On  Sunday  following,  Joseph  began  to  think  there  might  be  some- 
thing in  it.  Perhaps,  in  the  meantime,  he  had  seen  one  of  the 
Crowninshields.  He  was  apprehensive,  that  they  might  be  suspect- 
ed; he  was  anxious  to  turn  attention  from  their  family.  What 
course  did  he  adopt  to  effect  this?  He  addressed  one  letter,  with  a 
false  name,  to  Mr.  White,  and  another  to  the  committee  ;  and  to 
complete  the  climax  of  his  folly,  he  signed  the  letter  addressed  to 
the  committee,  "Grant" — the  same  name  as  that  signed  to  the  let- 
ter they  then  had  from  Belfast,  addressed  to  Knapp.  It  was  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  committee,  that  no  person  but  the  Knapps  had 
seen  this  letter  from  Belfast  ;  and  that  no  other  person  knew  its 
signature.  It  therefore  must  have  been  irresistibly  plain,  to  them, 
that  one  of  the  Knapps  must  have  been  the  writer  of  the  letter  they 
had  received,  charging  the  murder  on  Mr.  White.  Add  to  this, 
the  fact  of  its  having  been  dated  at  Lynn,  and  mailed  at  Salem,  four 
days  after  it  was  dated,  and  who  could  doubt  respecting  it?  Have 
you  ever  read,  or  known,  of  folly  equal  to  this?  Can  you  conceive 
of  crime  more  odious  and  abominable?  Merely  to  explain  the  ap- 
parent mysteries  of  the  letter  from  Palmer,  they  excite  the  basest 
suspicions  of  a  man,  who,  if  they  were  innocent,  they  had  no  rea- 
son to  believe  guilty  ;  and  who,  if  they  were  guilty,  they  most  cer- 
tainly knew  to  be  innocent.  Could  they  have  adopted  a  more 
direct  method  of  exposing  their  own  infamy  ?  The  letter  to  the 
committee  has  intrinsic  marks  of  a  knowledge  of  this  transaction. 
It  tells  of  the  time,  and   the  manner  in  which  the  murder  was  com- 


^; 


464 

mitted.  Every  line  speaks  the  writer's  condemnation.  In  attempt- 
ing to  divert  attention  from  his  family,  and  to  charge  the  guilt  upon 
another,  he  indelibly  fixes  it  upon  himself. 

Joseph  Knapp  requested  Allen  to  put  these  letters  into  the  post- 
office,  because,  said  he,  "  I  wish  to  nip  this  silly  affair  in  the  bud." 

^  j  ij  If  this  were  not  the  order  of  an  overruling  Providence,  I  should  say 
that  it  was  the  silliest  piece  of  folly  that  was  ever  practised.  Mark 
the  destiny  of  crime.  It  is  ever  obliged  to  resort  to  such  subterfu- 
ges ;  it  trembles  in  the  broad  light;  it  betrays  itself,  in  seeking  con- 
cealment. He  alone  walks  safely,  who  walks  uprightly.  Who,  for 
a  moment,  can  read  these  letters  and  doubt  of  J.  Knapp's  guilt? 
The  constitution  of  nature  is  made  to  inform  against  him.  There 
is  no  corner  dark  enough  to  conceal  him.  There  is  no  turnpike 
broad  enough,  or  smooth  enough,  for  a  man  so  guilty  to  walk  in 
without  stumbling.  Every  step  proclaims  his  secret  to  every  pas- 
senger. His  own  acts  come  out,  to  fix  his  guilt.  In  attempting  to 
charge  another  with  his  own  crime,  he  writes  his  own  confession.  To 
do  away  the  effect  of  Palmer's  letter,  signed  Grant — he  writes  his 
own  letter  and  affixes  to  it  the  name  of  Grant.  He  writes  in  a  dis- 
guised hand  ;  but  how  could  it  happen,  that  the  same  Grant  should 
be  in  Salem,  that  was  at  Belfast  ?  This  has  brought  the  whole  thing 
out.  Evidently  he  did  it,  because  he  has  adopted  the  same  style. 
Evidently,  he  did  it, — because  he  speaks  of  the  price  of  blood,  and 
of  other  circumstances  connected  with  the  murder,  that  no  one  but 

'iiW^"    a  conspirator  could  have  known. 

Palmer  says  he  made  a  visit  to  the  Crowninshields,  on  the  9th  of 
April.  George  then  asked  him  whether  he  had  heard  of  the  murder. 
,  Richard  inquired,  whether  he  had  heard  the  music  at  Salem.  They 
said  that  they  were  suspected,  that  a  committee  had  been  appointed 
to  search  houses  ;  and  that  they  had  melted  up  the  dagger,  the  day 
after  the  murder,  because  it  would  be  a  suspicious  circumstance  to 
have  it  found  in  their  possession.  Now  this  committee  was  not  ap- 
pointed, in  fact,  until  Friday  evening.  But  this  proves  nothing 
against  Palmer,  it  does  not  prove  that  George  did  not  tell  him  so; 
it  only  proves  that  he  gave  a  false  reason,  for  a  fact.  They  had 
heard  that  they  were  suspected — how  could  they  have  heard  this, 
unless  it  were  from  the  whisperings  of  their  own  consciences? 
Surely  this  rumor  was  not  then  public. 

About  the  27th  of  April,  another  attempt  is  made  by  the  Knapps 
to  give  a  direction  to  public  suspicion.  They  reported  themselves 
to  have  been  robbed,  in  passing  from  Salem  to  Wenham,  near  Wen- 
ham  pond.     They  came  to  Salem,   and  stated  the  particulars  of  the 

.      v    i  adventure  :  they  described  persons, — their  dress,  size,  and  appear- 

jj*  .  ance,  who  had  been  suspected  of  the  murder.  They  would  have  it 
understood,  that  the  community  was  infested  with  a  band  of  ruffians, 
and  that  they,  themselves,  were  the  particular  objects  of  their  ven- 
geance. INow,  this  turns  out  to  be  all  fictitious, — all  false.  Can 
y{  you  conceive  of  anything  more  enormous,  any  wickedness  greater, 
than  the  circulation  of  such  reports? — than  the  allegation  of  crimes, 
if  committed,  capital?  If  no  such  thing — then  it  reacts,  with  double 
force  upon  themselves,  and  goes  very  far  to  show  their  guilt.  How 
did  they  conduct  on  this  occasion?  did  they  make  hue  and  cry?  Did 


465 

they  give  information  that  they  had  been  assaulted,  that  night,  at 
Wenham?  No  such  thing.  They  rested  quietly  on  that  night  ; 
they  waited  to  be  called  on  for  the  particulars  of  their  adventure  ; 
they  made  no  attempt  to  arrest  the  offenders  ; — this  was  not  their 
object.  They  were  content  to  fill  the  thousand  mouths  of  rumor, — 
to  spread  abroad  false  reports, — to  divert  the  attention  of  the  public 
from  themselves;  for  they  thought  every  man  suspected  them,  be- 
cause they  knew  they  ought  to  be  suspected. 

The  manner  in  which  the  compensation  for  this  murder  was  paid, 
is  a  circumstance  worthy  of  consideration.  By  examining  the  facts 
and  dates,  it  will  satisfactorily  appear,  that  Joseph  Knapp  paid  a  sum 
of  money  to  Richard  Crowninshield  in  five  franc  pieces,  on  the  24th 
of  April.  On  the  21st  of  April,  Joseph  Knapp  received  five  hun- 
dred five  franc  pieces,  as  the  proceeds  of  an  adventure  at  sea.  The 
remainder  of  this  species  of  currency  that  came  home  in  the  vessel, 
was  deposited  in  a  bank  at  Salem.  On  Saturday,  24th  of  April,  Frank 
and  Richard  rode  to  Wenham.  They  were  there  with  Joseph  an 
hour  or  more:  appeared  to  be  negotiating  private  business.  Rich- 
ard continued  in  the  chaise  :  Joseph  came  to  the  chaise  and  conver- 
sed with  him.  These  facts  are  proved  by  Hart,  and  Leighton,  and 
by  Osborn's  books.  On  Saturday  evening,  about  this  time,  Richard 
Crowninshield  is  proved  to  have  been  at  Wenham,  with  another  per- 
son whose  appearance  corresponds  with  Frank,  by  Lummus.  Can 
any  one  doubt  this  being  the  same  evening?  What  had  Richard 
Crowninshield  to  do  at  Wenham,  with  Joseph,  unless  it  were  this 
business?  He  was  there  before  the  murder  ;  he  was  there  after  the 
murder  ;  he  was  there  clandestinely,  unwilling  to  be  seen.  If  it 
were  not  upon  this  business,  let  it  be  told  what  it  was  for.  Joseph 
Knapp  could  explain  it;  Frank  Knapp  might  explain  it.  But  they 
don't  explain  it;  and  the  inference  is  against  them. 

Immediately  after  this,  Richard  passes  five  franc  pieces  ;  on  the 
same  evening,  one  to  Lummus,  Jive  to  Palmer  ;  and  near  this  time, 
George  passes  three  or  four  in  Salem.  Here  are  nine  of  these 
pieces  passed  by  them  in  four  days;  this  is  extraordinary.  It  is  an 
unusual  currency  :  in  ordinary  business,  few  men  would  pass  nine  r^/ 
such  pieces  in  the  course  of  a  year.  If  they  were  not  received  in  I 
this  way,  why  not  explain  how  they  came  by  them?  Money  was  not 
so  flush  in  their  pockets,  that  they  could  not  tell  whence  it  came,  if  jt 
it  honestly  came  there.  It  is  extremely  important  to  them  to  explain 
whence  this  money  came,  and  they  would  do  it  if  they  could.  If, 
then,  the  price  of  blood  was  paid  at  this  time,  in  the  presence  and 
with  the  knowledge  of  this  defendant;  does  not  this  prove  him  to  have 
been  connected  with  this  conspiracy  ? 

Observe,  also,  the  effect  on  the  mind  of  Richard,  of  Palmer's  be- 
ing arrested,  and  committed  to  prison  ;  the  various  efforts  he  makes 
to  discover  the  fact;  the  lowering,  through  the  crevices  of  the  rock, 
the  pencil  and  paper  for  him  to  write  upon  ;  the  sending  two  lines  of 
poetry ,with  the  request  that  he  would  return  the  corresponding  lines  ; 
the  shrill  and  peculiar  whistle — the  inimitable  exclamations  of 
"  Palmer!  Palmer!  Palmer!" — all  these  things  prove  how  great  was 
his  alarm  ;  they  corroborate  Palmer's  story,  and  tend  to  establish 
the  conspiracy. 

59 


466 

Joseph  Knapp  had  a  part  to  act  in  this  matter;  he  must  have 
opened  the  window,  and  secreted  the  key — he  had  free  access  to 
every  part  of  the  house;  he  was  accustomed  to  visit  there;  he  went 
in  and  out  at  his  pleasure — he  could  do  this  without  being  suspec- 
ted.    He  is  proved  to  have  been  there  the  Saturday  preceding. 

If  all  these  things,  taken  in  connexion,  do  not  prove  that  Capt. 
White  was  murdered  in  pursuance  of  a  conspiracy — then  the  case 
is  at  an  end. 

Savary's  testimony  is  wholly  unexpected.  He  was  called,  for  a 
different  purpose.  When  asked  who  the  person  was,  that  he  saw 
come  out  of  Capt.  White's  yard  between  three  and  four  o'clock  in 
the  morning, — he  answered  Frank  Knapp.  I  am  not  clear  this  is 
not  true.  There  may  be  many  circumstances  of  importance  con- 
nected with  this,  though  we  believe  the  murder  to  have  been  commit- 
ted between  ten  and  eleven  o'clock.  The  letter  to  Dr.  Barstow 
states  it  to  have  been  done  about  eleven  o'clock — it  states  it  to  have 
been  done  with  a  blow  on  the  head,  from  a  weapon  loaded  with  lead. 
Here  is  too  great  a  correspondence  with  the  reality,  not  to  have 
some  meaning  to  it.  Dr.  Peirson  was  always  of  the  opinion  that 
the  two  classes  of  wounds  were  made  with  different  instruments,  and 
by  different  hands.  It  is  possible,  that  one  class  was  inflicted  at 
one  time,  and  the  other  at  another.  It  is  possible,  that  on  the  last 
visit,  the  pulse  might  not  have  entirely  ceased  to  beat;  and  then  the 
finishing  stroke  was  given.  It  is  said,  when  the  body  was  discov- 
ered, some  of  the  wounds  weeped,  while  the  others  did  not.  They 
may  have  been  inflicted  from  mere  wantonness.  It  was  known  that 
Capt.  White  was  accustomed  to  keep  specie  by  him  in  his  chamber; 
this  perhaps  may  explain  the  last  visit.  It  is  proved,  that  this  de- 
fendant was  in  the  habit  of  retiring  to  bed,  and  leaving  it  afterwards, 
without  the  knowledge  of  his  family;  perhaps  he  did  so  on  this  oc- 
casion. We  see  no  reason  to  doubt  the  fact;  and  it  does  not  shake 
our  belief  that  the  murder  was  committed  early  in  the  night. 

What  are  the  probabilities  as  to  the  time  of  the  murder?  Mr. 
White  was  an  aged  man; — he  usually  retired  to  bed  at  about  half 
past  nine.  He  slept  soundest,  in  the  early  part  of  the  night;  usually 
awoke  in  the  middle  and  latter  part;  and  his  habits  were  perfectly 
well  known.  When  would  persons,  with  a  knowledge  of  these  facts, 
be  most  likely  to  approach  him?  most  certainly,  in  the  first  hour  of 
his  sleep.  This  would  be  the  safest  time.  If  seen  then,  going  to 
or  from  the  house,  the  appearance  would  be  least  suspicious.  The 
earlier  hour  would  then  have  been  most  probably  selected. 

Gentlemen,  I  shall  dwell  no  longer  on  the  evidence  which'  tends 
to  prove  that  there  was  a  conspiracy,  and  that  the  prisoner  was  a 
conspirator.  All  the  circumstances  concur  to  make  out  this  point. 
Not  only  Palmer  swears  to  it,  in  effect,  and  Leighton,  but  Allen 
mainly  supports  Palmer,  and  Osborn's  books  lend  confirmation,  so 
far  as  possible  from  such  a  source.  Palmer  is  contradicted  in  noth- 
ing, either  by  any  other  witness,  or  any  proved  circumstance,  or 
occurrence.  Whatever  could  be  expected  to  support,  him,  does  sup- 
port him.  All  the  evidence  clearly  manifests,  I  think,  that  there 
was  a  conspiracy;  that  it  originated  with  J.  Knapp;  that  defendant 
became  a  party  to  it,  and  was  one  of  its  conductors,  from  first  to 


467 

last.  One  of  the  most  powerful  circumstances,  is  Palmer's  letter 
from  Belfast.  The  amount  of  this  was,  a  direct  charge  on  the 
Knapps,  of  the  authorship  of  this  murder.  How  did  they  treat  this 
charge;  like  honest  men,  or  like  guilty  men?  We  have  seen  how  it 
was  treated.  J.  Knapp  fabricated  letters,  charging  another  person, 
and  caused  them  to  be  put  into  the  postofhce. 

I  shall  now  proceed  on  the  supposition,  that  it  is  proved  that  there 
was  a  conspiracy  to  murder  Mr.  White,  and  that  the  prisoner  was 
party  to  it. 

The  second,  and  the  material  inquiry  is,  was  the  prisoner  present, 
at  the  murder,  aiding  and  abetting  therein? 

This  leads  to  the  legal  question  in  the  case,  what  does  the  law 
mean,  when  it  says,  to  charge  him  as  a  principal, "  he  must  be  pres- 
ent aiding  and  abetting  in  the  murder." 

In  the  language  of  the  late  chief  justice,  "  it  is  not  required  that 
the  abettor  shall  be  actually  upon  the  spot  when  the  murder  is  com- 
mitted, or  even  in  sight  of  the  more  immediate  perpetrator  of  the 
victim,  to  make  him  a  principal.  If  he  be  at  a  distance,  cooperat- 
ing in  the  act,  by  watching  to  prevent  relief,  or  to  give  an  alarm, 
or  to  assist  his  confederate  in  escape,  having  knowledge  of  the  purpose 
and  object  of  the  assassin, — this  in  the  eye  of  the  law  is  being  present, 
aiding  and  abetting,  so  as  to  make  him  a  principal  in  the  murder." 

"  If  he  be  at  a  distance  cooperating" — this  is  not  a  distance  to  be 
measured  by  feet  or  rods;  if  the  intent  to  lend  aid,  combine  with  a 
knowledge  that  the  murder  is  to  be  committed,  and  the  person  so 
intending,  be  so  situate  that  he  can  by  any  possibility  lend  this  aid, 
in  any  manner,  then  he  is  present  in  legal  contemplation.  He  need 
not  lend  any  actual  aid :  to  be  ready  to  assist,  is  assisting. 

There  are  two  sorts  of  murder;  the  distinction  between  them,  it  is 
of  essential  importance  to  bear  in  mind. — 1.  Murder  in  an  affray, 
or  upon  sudden  and  unexpected  provocation  : — 2.  Murder  secret- 
ly, with  a  deliberate,  predetermined  intention  to  commit  murder. 
Under  the  first  class,  the  question  usually  is,  whether  the  offence 
be  murder  or  manslaughter,  in  the  person  who  commits  the  deed. 
Under  the  second  class,  it  is  often  a  question  whether  others,  than 
he  who  actually  did  the  deed,  were  present  aiding  and  assisting 
thereto.  Offences  of  this  kind  ordinarily  happen  when  there  is  no 
body  present  except  those  who  go  on  the  same  design.  If  a  riot 
should  happen  in  the  court  house,  and  one  should  kill  another — 
this  may  be  murder,  or  it  may  not,  according  to  the  intention  with 
which  it  was  done;  which  is  always  matter  of  fact  to  be  collected 
from  the  circumstances  at  the  time.  But  in  secret  murders,  pre- 
meditated and  determined  on,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  murder- 
ous intention; — there  can  be  no  doubt,  if  a  person  be  present,  know- 
ing a  murder  is  to  be  done,  of  his  concurring  in  the  act.  His  being 
there  is  a  proof  of  his  intent  to  aid  and  abet;  else,  why  is  he  there? 

It  has  been  contended,  that  proof  must  be  given  that  the  person 
accused  did  actually  afford  aid,  did  lend  a  hand  in  the  murder  it- 
self;— and  without  this  proof,  although  he  may  be  near  by,  he  may 
be  presumed  to  be  there  for  an  innocent  purpose;  he  may  have 
crept  silently  there  to  hear  the  news,  or  from  mere  curiosity  to  see 
what  was  going  on.     Preposterous — absurd!     Such  an  idea  shocks 


468 

all  common  sense.  A  man  is  found  to  be  a  conspirator  to  do  a  mur- 
der; he  has  planned  it;  he  has  assisted  in  arranging  the  time,  the 
place,  and  the  means;  and  he  is  found,  in  the  place,  and  at  the  time, 
and  jet  it  is  suggested  that  he  might  have  been  there,  not  for  co- 
operation and  concurrence,  but  from  curiosity!  Such  an  argument 
deserves  no  answer.  It  would  be  difficult  to  give  it  one,  in  decorous 
terms.  Is  it  not  to  be  taken  for  granted,  that  a  man  seeks  to  ac- 
complish his  own  purposes?  When  he  has  planned  a  murder,  and 
is  present  at  its  execution,  is  he  there  to  forward,  or  to  thwart,  his 
own  design?  Is  he  there  to  assist,  or  there  to  prevent?  But,  "  Cu- 
riosity!"— He  may  be  there  from  mere  "  curiosity!"  Curiosity,  to 
witness  the  success  of  the  execution  of  his  own  plan  of  murder! — 
The  very  walls  of  a  court  house  ought  not  to  stand — the  plough 
share  should  run  through  the  ground  it  stands  on,  where  such  an 
argument  could  find  toleration. 

.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  abettor  should  actually  lend  a  hand — 
that  he  should  take  a  part  in  the  act  itself ;  if  he  be  present,  ready 
/to  assist — that  is  assisting.  Some  of  the  doctrines  advanced  would 
acquit  the  defendant,  though  he  had  gone  to  the  bed  chamber  of  the 
deceased, — though  he  had  been  standing  by,  when  the  assassin  gave 
the  blow.  This  is  the  argument  we  have  heard  to  day.  [The  court 
here  said,  they  did  not  so  understand  the  argument  of  the  counsel 
for  defendant.  Mr.  Dexter  said,  "  the  intent  and  power  alone  must 
cooperate."]  Mr.  Webster  continued,  no  doubt  the  law  is,  that 
being  ready  to  assist  is  assisting,  if  he  has  the  power  to  assist,  in 
case  of  need.  And  it  is  so  stated  by  Foster,  who  is  a  high  author- 
ity. "  If  A.  happeneth  to  be  present  at  a  murder,  for  instance,  and 
taketh  no  part  in  it,  nor  endeavoureth  to  prevent  it,  nor  apprehend- 
eth  the  murderer,  nor  levyeth  hue  and  cry  after  him,  this  strange 
behavior  of  his,  though  highly  criminal,  will  not  of  itself  render 
him  either  principal  or  accessory."  "But  if  a  fact  amounting  to 
murder  should  be  committed  in  prosecution  of  some  unlawful  pur- 
pose, though  it  were  but  a  bare  trespass,  to  which  A.  in  the  case  last 
stated  had  consented,  and  he  had  gone  in  order  to  give  assistance, 
if  need  were,  for  carrying  it  into  execution,  this  would  have  amount- 
ed to  murder  in  him,  and  in  every  person  present  and  joining  with 
him."  "  If  the  fact  was  committed  in  prosecution  of  the  original 
purpose  which  was  unlawful,  the  whole  party  will  be  involved  in  the 
guilt  of  him  who  gave  the  blow.  For  in  combinations  of  this  kind, 
the  mortal  stroke,  though  given  by  one  of  the  party,  is  considered 
in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  of  sound  reason  too,  as  given  by  every 
individual  present  and  abetting.  The  person  actually  giving  the 
stroke  is  no  more  than  the  hand  or  instrument  by  which  the  others 
strike."  The  author  in  speaking  of  being  present,  means  actual 
presence;  not  actual  in  opposition  to  constructive,  for  the  law  knows 
no  such  distinction.  There  is  but  one  presence,  and  this  is  the 
situation  from  which  aid,  or  supposed  aid  may  be  rendered.  The 
law  does  not  say  where  he  is  to  go,  or  how  near  he  is  to  go,  but 
somewhere  where  he  may  give  assistance,  or  where  the  perpetrator 
may  suppose  that  he  may  be  assisted  by  him.  Suppose  that  he  is 
acquainted  with  the  design  of  the  murderer,  and  has  a  knowledge 
of  the  time  when  it  is  to  be  carried  into  effect,  and  goes  out  with  a 


469 

view  to  render  assistance,  if  need  be;  why,  then,  even  though  the 
murderer  does  not  know  of  this,  the  person  so  going  out  will  be  an 
abettor  in  the  murder.  It  is  contended  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
could  not  be  a  principal,  he  being  in  Brown  street;  because  he  could 
not  there  render  assistance.  And  you  are  called  upon  to  determine 
this  case,  according  as  you  may  be  of  opinion,  whether  Brown  street 
was,  or  was  not,  a  suitable,  convenient,  well  chosen  place,  to  aid  in 
this  murder.  This  is  not  the  true  question.  The  inquiry  is,  not 
whether  you  would  have  selected  this  place  in  preference  to  all 
others,  or  whether  you  would  have  selected  it  at  all;  if  they  chose  it, 
why  should  we  doubt  about  it  ?  How  do  we  know  the  use  they  intended 
to  make  of  it,  or  the  kind  of  aid  that  he  was  to  afford  by  being  there?  >  [ 
The  question  for  you  to  consider,  is,  did  the  defendant  go  into  Brown  ••  * 
street  in  aid  of  this  murder?  Did  he  go  there  by  agreement,  by  ap- 
pointment, with  the  perpetrator?  If  so,  everything  else  follows.  ^ 
The  main  thing,  indeed  the  only  thing,  is  to  inquire,  whether  he  /V^ 
was  in  Brown  street  by  appointment  with  Richard  Crowninshield — 
it  might  be  to  keep  general  watch;  to  observe  the  lights,  and  advise 
as  to  time  of  access;  to  meet  the  prisoner  on  his  return,  to  advise 
him  as  to  his  escape;  to  examine  his  clothes,  to  see  if  any  marks  of 
blood;  to  furnish  exchange  of  clothes,  or  new  disguise  if  necessary; 
to  tell  him  through  what  streets  he  could  safely  retreat,  or  whether 
he  could  deposit  the  club  in  the  place  designed: — Or  it  might  be  with- 
out any  distinct  object;  but  merely  to  afford  that  encouragement 
which  would  be  afforded,  by  Richard  Crowninshield's  consciousness1^^* 
that  he  was  near.  It  is  of  no  consequence  whether,  in  your  opin- 
ion, the  place  was  well  chosen  or  not,  to  afford  aid; — if  it  was  so  cho-Au*-** 
sen,  if  it  was  by  appointment,  that  he  was  there,  that  is  enough. 
Suppose  Richard  Crowninshield,  when  applied  to  to  commit  the  mur- 
der, had  said,  "  I  won't  do  it  unless  there  can  be  some  one  near  by 
to  favor  my  escape;  I  won't  go  unless  you  will  stay  in  Brown  street." 
Upon  the  gentleman's  argument,  he  would  not  be  an  aider  and  abettor 
in  the  murder,  because  the  place  was  not  well  chosen;  though  it  is 
apparent,  that  the  being  in  the  place  chosen,-,  was  a  condition,  with- 
out which,  the  murder  would  have  never  happened. 

You  are  to  consider  the  defendant  as  one  in  the  league,  in  the 
combination  to  commit  the  murder.     If  he  was  there  by  appoint- *"" 
ment,  with  the  perpetrator,  he  is  an  abetter.     The  concurrence  ofrMfa** 
the  perpetrator  in  his  being  there,  is  proved  by  the  previous  evidence 
of  the   conspiracy.     If  Richard   Crowninshield,   for   any   purpose 
whatsoever,  made  it  a  condition  of  the  agreement,  that  Frank  Knapp  -v^ 
should  stand  as  backer,  then  Frank  Knapp  was  an  aider  and  abettor: 
no  matter  what  the  aid  was,  of  what  sort  it  was,  or  degree — be  it 
never  so  little.     Even  if  it  were  to  judge  of  the  hour,  when  it  was    ' 
best  to  go,  or  to  see  when  the  lights  were  extinguished,  or  to  give  an 
alarm  if  any  one  approached.     Who  better  calculated  to  judge  of 
these  things  than  the  murderer  himself?  and  if  he  so  determined 
them,  that  is  sufficient. 

Noiv  as  to  the  facts:  Frank  Knapp  knew  that  the  murder  was  that 
night  to  be  committed;  he  was  one  of  the  conspirators,  he  knew  the 
object,  he  knew  the  time.  He  had  that  day  been  to  Wenham  to  see 
Joseph,  and  probably  to  Danvers  to  see  Richard  Crowninshield,  for 


470 

he  kept  his  motions  secret;  he  had  that  day  hired  a  horse  and  chaise 
of  Osborn,  and  attempted  to  conceal  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
used, — he  had  intentionally  left  the  place  and  the  price  blank  on  Os- 
torn's  books.  He  went  to  Wenham  by  the  way  of  Danvers:  he  had 
been  told  the  week  before,  to  hasten  Dick;  he  had  seen  the  Crown- 
inshields  several  times  within  a  few  days;  he  had  a  saddle  horse  the 
Saturday  night  before;  he  had  seen  Mrs.  Beckford  at  Wenham,  and 
knew  she  would  not  return  that  night.  She  had  not  been  away  be- 
fore for  six  weeks,  and  probably  would  not  soon  be  again.  He  had 
just  come  from  there.  Every  day,  for  the  week  previous,  he  had  vis- 
;  •**  tied  one  or  other  of  these  conspirators,  save  Sunday,  and  then  prob- 
ajbly  he  saw  them  in  town.  When  he  saw  Joseph  on  the  6th,  Joseph 
had  prepared  the  house,  and  would  naturally  tell  him  of  it;  there 
were  constant  communications  between  them,  daily  and  nightly  vis- 
itation;— too  much  knowledge  of  these  parties  and  this  transaction, 
to  leave  a  particle  of  doubt  on  the  mind  of  any  one,  that  Frank 
Knapp  knew  that  the  murder  was  to  be  done  this  night.  The  hour 
was  come,  and  he  knew  it;  if  so,  and  he  was  in  Brown  street,  with- 
out explaining  why  he  was  there,  can  the  jury  for  a  moment  doubt, 
whether  he  was  there  to  countenance,  aid  or  support;  or  for  curi- 
osity alone; — or  to  learn  how  the  wages  of  sin  and  death  were  earn- 
ed by  the  perpetrator?  ' 

[Here  Mr.  Webster  read  the  law  from  Hawkins.  1.  Hawk.  204. 
Lib.   1.  chap.  32.  sec.  7.] 

The  perpetrator  would  derive  courage,  and  strength,  and  confi- 
dence, from  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  one  of  his  associates  was 
near  by.  If  he  was  in  Brown  street,  he  could  have  been  there  for 
no  other  purpose.  If  there  for  this  purpose,  then  he  was,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  law,  present,  aiding  and  abetting  in  the  murder. 

His  interest  lay  in  being  somewhere  else.  If  he  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  murder,  no  part  to  act,  why  not  stay  at  home  ?  Why 
should  he  jeopard  his  own  life,  if  it  was  not  agreed  that  he  should 
be  there  ?  He  would  not  voluntarily  go  where  the  very  place  would 
probably  cause  him  to  swing  if  detected.  He  would  not  voluntari- 
ly assume  the  place  of  danger.  His  taking  this  place,  proves  that 
{L^i  he  went  to  give  aid.  His  staying  away  would  have  made  an  alibi. 
If  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  murder,  he  would  be  at  home, 
Cv^HM  where  he  could  prove  his  alibi.  '  He  knew  he  was  in  danger,  because 
he  was  guilty  of  the  conspiracy,  and  if  he  had  nothing  to  do,  would 
VY    -(-not  expose  himself  to  suspicion  or  detection. 

Did  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  countenance  this  murder?  Did  he 
concur,  or  did  he  non-concur,  in  what  the  perpetrator  was  about  to 
do?  Would  he  have  tried  to  shield  him?  Would  he  have  furnished 
his  cloak  for  protection?  Would  he  have  pointed  out  a  safe  way  of 
retreat?  As  you  would  answer  these  questions,  so  you  should  an- 
swer the  general  question — whether  he  was  there  consenting  to  the 
murder ,  or  whether  he  was  there  a  spectator  only  ? 

One  word  more  on  this  presence,  called  constructive  presence. 
What  aid  is  to  be  rendered  ?  Where  is  the  line  to  be  drawn,  be- 
tween acting,  and  omitting  to  act?  Suppose  he  had  been  in  the 
house,  suppose  he  had  followed  the  perpetrator  to  the  chamber, 
what  could  he  have  done?     This  was  to  be  a  murder  by  stealth; 


471 

it  was  to  be  a  secret  assassination.  It  was  not  their  purpose  to  have 
an  open  combat;  they  were  to  approach  their  victim  unawares,  and 
silently  give  the  fatal  blow.  But  if  he  had  been  in  the  chamber,  no 
one  can  doubt  that  he  would  have  been  an  abettor;  because  of  his 
presence,  and  ability  to  render  services,  if  needed.  What  service 
could  he  have  rendered,  if  there?  Could  he  have  helped  him  fly^? 
Could  he  have  aided  the  silence  of  his  movements?  Could  he  have 
facilitated  his  retreat,  on  the  first  alarm?  Surely,  this  was  a  case, 
where  there  was  more  of  safety  in  going  alone,  than  with  another; 
where  company  would  only  embarrass.  Richard  Crowninshield 
would  prefer  to  go  alone.  He  knew  his  errand  too  wefl.  His 
nerves  needed  no  collateral  support.  He  was  not  the  man  to  take 
with  him  a  trembling  companion.  He  would  prefer  to  have  his  aid 
at  a  distance.  He  would  not  wish  to  be  embarrassed  by  his  pres- 
ence. He  would  prefer  to  have  him  out  of  the  house.  He  would 
prefer  that  he  should  be  in  Brown  street.      But,  whether   in  the  * 

chamber,  in  the  house,  in  the  garden,  or  in  the  street/whatsoever 
is  aiding  in  immediate  presence,  is  aiding  in  constructive  presence-^- 
an)  thing  that  is  aid  in  one  case  is  aid  in  the  other. 

[Reads  from  Hawkins.  4.  Hawk.  201.  Lib.  iv.  chap.  29.  sec.  8.] 
If  then  the  aid  be  anywhere,  that  emboldens  the  perpetrator — 
that  affords  him  hope  or  confidence  in  his  enterprise,  it  is  the  same 
as  though  he  stood  at  his  elbow  with  his  sword  drawn:  his  being 
there  ready  to  rxt,  with  the  power  to  act,  that  is  what  makes  him 
an  abettor.  [Here  Mr.  Webster  referred  to  Kelly's  case,  and 
Hyde's  case,  &c.  cited  by  counsel  for  the  defendant,  and  showed 
that  they  did  not  militate  with  the  doctrine  for  which  he  contended. 
The  difference  is,  in  those  cases  there  was  open  violence;  this  was 
a  case  of  secret  assassination.  The  aid  must  meet  the  occasion. 
Here  no  acting  was  necessary,  but  watching,  concealment  of  es- 
cape, management.] 

What  are  the  facts  in  relation  to  this  presence.     Frank  Knapp 
is  proved  a  conspirator — proved  to  have   known  that  the   deed   was  ^  u 
now  to  be  done.     Is  it  not  probable  that  he  was  in  Brown  street  to 
concur  in  the  murder?     There  were   four  conspirators;  it  was   nat- 
ural that  some  one  of  them  would  go  with  the  perpetrator.     Richard  P/f*. 
Crowninshield  was  to  be  the  perpetrator;  he  was  to  give  the  blow. 
No  evidence  of  any  casting  of  the  parts  for  the  others.     The  de- 
fendant would  probably  be  the  man  to  take  the   second   part.     He 
was  fond  of  exploits — he  was  accustomed  to  the  use  of  sword  canes,  -. i^*, 
and  dirks.     If  any  aid  was  required,  he  was  the  man  to  give  it. 
At  least  there  is  no  evidence  to  the  contrary  of  this. 

•  Aid  could  not  have  been   received  from  Joseph  Knapp,  or  from  yU^M 
George  Crowninshield.     Joseph  Knapp  was  at  Wenham,  and  took  .,  t^ 
good  care  to  prove  that  he  was  there.     George  Crowninshield  has 
proved  satisfactorily  where  he  was;  that  he  was  in  other. company, ^^* 
such  as  it  was,  until  11  o'clock.     This  narrows  the  inquiry.     This,\k  Ja 
demands  of  the  prisoner  to  show,  that  if  he  was  not  in  this   place,  Jf      I 
where  he  was?     It  calls  on  him  loudly  to  show  this,  and  to  show  it 
truly.     If  he  could  show  it,  he  would  do  it.     If  he  don't  tell,  and  -  ,j^ 
that  truly,  it  is  against  him.     The  defence  of  an  alibi  is  a  double 
edged  sword.     He  knew  that  he  was  in  a  situation,  that  he  might 


472 

be  called  upon  to  account  for  himself!  If  he  had  had  no  particular 
appointment,  or  business  to  attend  to,  he  would  have  taken  care  to 
have  been  able  so  to  have  accounted.  He  would  have  been  out 
of  town,  or  in  some  good  compitery.  Has  he  accounted  for  himself 
on  that  night,  to  your  satisfaction? 
.*»m)^  >#The  prisoner  has  attempted  to  prove  an  alibi,  in  two  ways.  In 
the  first  place,  by  four  young  men  with  whom  he  says  he  was  in  com- 
pany on  the  evening  of  the  murder,  from  seven  o'clock,  till  near  ten 
o'clock  ;  this  depends  upon  the  certainty  of  the  night.     In  the  second 


place,  by  his  family,  from  ten  o'clock  afterwards;  this  depends  upon 
the  certainty  of  the  time  of  the  night.  These  two  classes  of  proof  have 
no  connexion  with  each  other.  One  may  be  true,  and  the  other 
false,  or  they  may  both  be  true,  or  both  be  false.  I  shall  examine 
this  testimony  with  some  attention,  because  on  a  former  trial,  it 
made  more  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  court,  than  on  my  own 
mind.  I  think,  when  carefully  sifted  and  compared,  it  will  be  found 
to  have  in  it  more  of  plausibility  than  reality.  ** 

Pf#Mr.  Page  testifies,  that  on  the  evening  of  the  6th  of  April,  he 
was  in  company  with  Burchmore,  Balch,  and  Forrester,  and  that  he 
met  the  defendant  about  seven  o'clock,  near  the  Salem  hotel;  that  he 
afterwards  met  him  at  Remond's,  about  nine  o'clock,  and  that  he  was 
in  company  with  him  a  considerable  part  of  the  evening.  This 
young  gentleman  is  a  member  of  college,  and  says  that  he  came  in 
town  the  Saturday  evening  previous;  that  he  is  now  able  to  say  that 
it  was  the  night  of  the  murder,  when  he  walked  with  Frank  Knapp, 
from  the  recollection  of  the  fact,  that  he  called  himself  to  an  ac- 
count, on  the  morning  after  the  murder,  as  was  natural  for  men  to 
do  when  an  extraordinary  occurrence  happens.*  Gentlemen,  this 
kind  of  evidence  is  not  satisfactory;  general  impressions  as  to  time 
are  not  to  be  relied  on.  If  1  were  called  upon  to  state  the  particu- 
lar day  on  which  any  witness  testified  in  this  cause,  I  could  not  do 
it.  Every  man  will  notice  the  same  thing  in  his  own  mind.  There 
is  no  one  of  these  young  men  that  could  give  any  account  of  him- 
self for  any  other  day  in  the  month  of  April.  They  are  made  to  re- 
member the  fact,  and  then  they  think  they  remember  the  time.  He 
has  no  means  of  knowing  it  was  Tuesday  more  than  any  other  time. 
He  did  not  know  it  at  first,  he  could  not  know  it  afterwards.  He 
says  he  called  himself  to  an  account  ;  this  has  no  more  to  do  with 
the  murder,  than  with  the  man  in  the  moon.  Such  testimony  is  not 
worthy  to  be  relied  on,  in  any  forty  shilling  cause.  What  occasion 
had  he  to  call  himself  to  an  account  ?  Did  he  suppose,  that  he 
should  be  suspected  ?     Had  he  any  intimation  of  this  conspiracy? 

Suppose,  gentlemen,  you  were  either  of  you  asked,  where  you- 
were,  or  what  you  were  doing,  on  the  15th  day  of  June  ;  you  could 
not  answer  this  question,  without  calling  to  mind  some  events  to 
make  it  certain.  Just  as  well  may  you  remember  on  what  you  dined 
on,  each  day  of  the  year  past.  Time  is  identical.  Its  subdivisions 
are  all  alike.  No  man  knows  one  day  from  another,  or  one  hour 
from  another,  but  by  some  fact  connected  with  it.  Days  and  hours 
are  not  visible  to  the  senses,  nor  to  be  apprehended  and  distinguish- 
ed by  the  understanding.  The  flow  of  time  is  known  only  by  some- 
thing which  makes  it;  and  he  who  speaks  of  the  date  of  occurrences 


473 

with  nothing  to  guide  his  recollection,  speaks  at  random,  and  is  not 
to  be  relied  on.  This  young  gentleman  remembers  the  facts,  and 
occurrences — he  knows  nothing  why  they  should  not  have  happen- 
ed on  the  evening  of  the  sixth;  but  he  knows  no  more.  All  the  rest, 
is  evidently  conjecture  or  impression. 

Mr.  White  informs  you  that  he  told  him  he  could  not  tell  what 
night  it  was.  The  first  thoughts  are  all  that  are  valuable  in  such 
case.     They  miss  the  mark  by  taking  second  aim. 

Mr.  Balch  believes,  but  is  not  sure,  that  he  was  with  Frank  Knapp 
on  the  evening  of  the  murder.  He  has  given  different  accounts  of 
the  time.  He  has  no  means  of  making  it  certain.  All  he  knows  is, 
that  it  was  some  evening  before  Fast.  But  whether  Monday,  Tues- 
day or  Saturday,  he  cannot  tell. 

Mr.  Burchmore  says,  to  the  best  of  his  belief,  it  was  the  evening 
of  the  murder.  Afterwards  he  attempts  to  speak  positively,  from 
recollecting  that  he  mentioned  the  circumstance  to  William  Peirce, 
as  he  went  to  the  Mineral  Spring  on  Fast  day.  Last  Monday  morn- 
ing, he  told  Col.  Putnam  he  could  not  fix  the  time.  This  witness 
stands  in  a  much  worse  plight  than  either  of  the  others.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  reconcile  all  he  has  said,  with  any  belief  in  the  accuracy  of 
his  recollections. 

Mr.  Forrester  does  not  speak  with  any  certainty  as  to  the  night; 
and  it  is  very  certain,  that  he  told  Mr.  Loring  and  others,  that  he 
did  not  know  what  night  it  was. 

Now,  what  does  the  testimony  of  these  four  young  men  amount 
to?  The  only  circumstance,  by  which  they  approximate  to  an  iden- 
tifying of  the  night  is,  that  three  of  them  say  it  was  cloudy;  they 
think  their  walk  was  either  on  Monday  or  Tuesday  evening,  and  it 
is  admitted  that  Monday  evening  was  clear,  whence  they  draw  the 
inference  that  it  must  have  been  Tuesday. 

But,  fortunately,  there  is  one  fact  disclosed  in  their  testimony  that 
settles  the  question.  Balch  says,  that  on  the  evening,  whenever  it 
was,  that  he  saw  the  prisoner,  the  prisoner  told  him  he  was  going 
out  of  town  on  horseback,  for  a  distance  of  about  twenty  minutes 
ride,  and  that  he  was  going  to  get  a  horse  at  Osborn's.  This  was 
about  seven  o'clock.  At  about  nine,  Balch  says  he  saw  the  prisoner 
again,  and  was  then  told  by  him,  that  he  had  had  his  ride,  and  had 
returned.  Now  it  appears  by  Osborn's  books,  that  the  prisoner  had 
a  saddle  horse  from  his  stable,  not  on  Tuesday  evening,  the  night 
of  the  murder,  but  on  the  Saturday  evening  previous.  This  fixes 
the  time,  about  which  these  young  men  testify,  and  is  a  complete 
answer  and  refutation  of  the  attempted  alibi,  on  Tuesday  evening. 

I  come  now  to  speak  of  the  testimony  adduced  by  the  defendant 
to  explain  where  he  was  after  ten  o'clock  on  the  night  of  the  murder. 
This  comes  chiefly  from  members  of  the  family;  from  his  father  and 
brothers. 

It  is  agreed  that  the  affidavit  of  the  prisoner,  should  be  received 
as  evidence  of  what  his  brother,  Samuel  H.  Knapp,  would  testify,  if 
present.  S.  H.  Knapp  says,  that  about  ten  minutes  past  ten  o'clock, 
his  brother  F.  Knapp,  on  his  way  to  bed,  opened  his  chamber  door, 
made  some  remarks,  closed  the  door,  and  went  to  his  chamber;  and 
that  he  did  not  hear  him  leave  it  afterwards.  How  is  this  witness 
60  QQ* 


474 

able  to  fix  the  time  at  ten  minutes  past  ten  ?  There  is  no  circum- 
stance mentioned,  by  which  he  fixes  it.  He  had  been  in  bed,  prob- 
ably asleep,  and  was  aroused  from  his  sleep,  by  the  opening  of  the 
door.  Was  he  in  a  situation  to  speak  of  time  with  precision  ?  Could 
he  know,  under  such  circumstances,  whether  it  was  ten  minutes 
past  ten,  or  ten  minutes  before  eleven,  when  his  brother  spoke  to 
him?  What  would  be  the  natural  result,  in  such  a  case?  But  we 
are  not  left  to  conjecture  this  result.  We  have  positive  testimony 
on  this  point.  Mr.  Webb  tells  you  that  Samuel  told  him  on  the  8th 
of  June,  "  that  he  did  not  know  what  time  his  brother  Frank  came 
home,  and  that  he  was  not  at  home  when  he  went  to  bed."  You 
will  consider  this  testimony  of  Mr.  Webb,  as  indorsed  upon  this  affi- 
davit; and  with  this  indorsement  upon  it,  you  will  give  it  its  due 
weight.  This  statement  was  made  to  him  after  Frank  was  arrested. 
I  come  to  the  testimony  of  the  father.  I  find  myself  incapable 
of  speaking  of  him  or  his  testimony  with  severity.  Unfortunate  old 
man!  Another  Lear,  in  the  conduct  of  his  children;  another  Lear, 
I  fear,  in  the  effect  of  his  distress  upon  his  mind  and  understanding. 

V/   y\  He  is  brought  here  to  testify,  under  circumstances  that  disarm  se- 
'jr\     verity,  and  call  loudly  for  sympathy.     Though  it  is  impossible  not 

V'  to  see  that  his  story  cannot  be  credited,  yet  I  am  not  able  to  speak 

of  him  otherwise  than  in  sorrow  and  grief.  Unhappy  father!  he 
strives  to  remember,  perhaps  persuades  himself  that  he  does  remem- 
ber, that  on  the  evening  of  the  murder  he  was  himself  at  home  at 
ten  o'clock.  He  thinks, — or  seems  to  think,  that  his  son  came  in,  at 
about  five  minutes  past  ten.  He  fancies  that  he  remembers  his  con- 
versation; he  thinks  he  spoke  of  bolting  the  door;  he  thinks  he  ask- 
ed the  time  of  night;  he  seems  to  remember  his  then  going  to  his 
bed.  Alas!  these  are  but  the  swimming  fancies  of  an  agitated  and 
distressed  mind.  Alas!  they  are  but  the  dreams  of  hope, — its  un- 
certain lights,  flickering  on  the  thick  darkness  of  parental  distress. 
Alas!  the  miserable  father  knows  nothing,  in  reality,  of  all  these 
things. 

Mr.  Shepard  says  that  the  first  conversation  he  had  with  Mr. 
Kpapp,  was  soon  after  the  murder,  and  before  the  arrest  of  his  sons. 
Mr.  Knapp  says  it  was  after  the  arrest  of  his  sons.  His  own  fears 
led  him  to  say  to  Mr.  Shepard,  that  his  "  son  Frank  was  at  home 
that  night;  and  so  Phippen  told  him, — or  as  Phippen  told  him."  Mr. 
Shepard  says  that  he  was  struck  with  the  remark  at  the  time,  that  it 
made  an  unfavorable  impression  on  his  mind;  he  does  not  tell  you 
what  that  impression  was,  but  when  you  connect  it  with  the  previous 
inquiry  he  had  made, — whether  Frank  had  continued  to  associate 
with  the  Crowninshields? — and  recollect  that  the  Crowninshields 
were  then  known  to  be  suspected  of  this  crime,  can  you  doubt  what 
this  impression  was?  can  you  doubt  as  to  the  fears  he  then  had? 
r' V  This  poor  old  man  tells  you,  that  he  was  greatly  perplexed  at  the 
*}  time,  that  he  found  himself  in  embarrassed  circumstances;  that  on 
this  very  night  he  was  engaged  in  making  an  assignment  of  his  prop- 
erty to  his  friend  Mr.  Shepard.  If  ever  charity  should  furnish  a 
mantle  for  error,  it  should  be  here.  Imagination  cannot  picture  a 
more  deplorable,  distressed  condition. 


475 

The  same  general  remarks  may  be  applied  to  his  conversation  with  yr    \ 
Mr.  Treadwell,  as  have  been  made  upon  that  with  Mr.   Shepard.  \j^\ 
He  told  him  that  he  believed  Frank  was  at  home  about  the  usual 
time.     In  his  conversations  with  either  of  these  persons,  he  did  not 


pretend  to  know,  of  his  own  knowledge,  the  time  that  he  came  home,  v  i 
He  now  tells  you,  positively,  that  he  recollects  the  time,  and  that  he 
so  told  Mr.  Shepard.  He  is  directly  contradicted  by  both  these 
witnesses,  as  respectable  men  as  Salem  affords.  '    ^ 

This  idea  of  alibi,  is  of  recent  origin.  Would  Samuel  Knapp 
have  gone  to  sea,  if  it  were  then  thought  of  ?  His  testimony,  if  true, 
was  too  important  to  be  lost.  If  there  be  any  truth  in  this  part  of 
the  alibi,  it  is  so  near  in  point  of  time,  that  it  cannot  be  relied  on. 
The  mere  variation  of  half  an  hour  would  avoid  it. — The  mere  vari- 
ations of  different  time  pieces  would  explain  it. 

Has  the  defendant  proved  where  he  was  on  that  night  ?  If  you  /  K 
doubt  about  it — there  is  an  end  of  it.  The  burden  is  upon  him,  to  * 
satisfy  you  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  Osborn's  books,  in  con- 
nexion with  what  the  young  men  state,  are  conclusive,  I  think,  on  this 
point.  He  has  not,  then,  accounted  for  himself — he  has  attempted 
it,  and  has  failed.  I  pray  you  to  remember,  gentlemen,  that  this  is 
a  case,  in  which  the  prisoner  would,  more  than  any  other,  be  ration- 
ally able  to  account  for  himself,  on  the  night  of  the  murder,  if  he 
could  do  so.  He  was  in  the  conspiracy,  he  knew  the  murder  was 
then  to  be  committed,  and  if  he  himself  was  to  have  no  hand  in  its 
actual  execution,  he  would  of  course,  as  matter  of  safety  and  pre- 
caution, be  somewhere  else,  and  be  able  to  prove,  afterwards,  that 
he  had  been  somewhere  else.  Having  this  motive  to  prove  himself 
elsewhere,  and  the  power  to  do  it,  if  he  were  elsewhere,  his  failing 
in  such  proof  must  necessarily  leave  a  very  strong  inference  against 
him. 

But,  gentlemen,  let  us  now  consider  what  is  the  evidence  produced 
on  the  part  of  the  government  to  prove  that  John  Francis  Knapp, 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  was  in  Brown  street  on  the  night  of  the 
murder.  This  is  a  point  of  vital  importance  in  this  cause.  Unless 
this  be  made  out,  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  the  law  of  presence  does 
not  apply  to  the  case.  The  government  undertake  to  prove  that  he 
was  present,  aiding  in  the  murder,  by  proving  that  he  was  in 
Brown  street  for  this  purpose.  JNow,  what  are  the  undoubted  facts? 
They  are,  that  two  persons  were  seen  in  that  street,  at  several  times, 
during  that  evening,  under  suspicious  circumstances; — under  such 
circumstances  as  induced  those  who  saw  them,  to  watch  their  move- 
ments. Of  this,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Mirick  saw  a  man  stand- 
ing at  the  post  opposite  his  store,  from  fifteen  minutes  before  nine,  un- 
til twenty  minutes  after,  dressed  in  a  full  frock  coat,  glazed  cap,  &c, 
in  size  and  general  appearance  answering  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 
This  person  was  waiting  there;  and  whenever  any  one  approached 
him,  he  moved  to  and  from  the  corner,  as  though  he  would  avoid  be- 
ing suspected,  or  recognised.  Afterwards,  two  persons  were  seen 
by  Webster,  walking  in  Howard  street,  with  a  slow,  deliberate  move- 
ment, that  attracted  his  attention.  This  was  about  half  past  nine. 
One  of  these  he  took  to  be  the  prisoner  at  the  bar — the  other  he  did 
not  know. 


476 

#  About  half  past  ten,  a  person  is  seen  sitting  on  the  ropewalk  steps, 
wrapped  in  a  cloak.  He  drops  his  head  when  passed,  to  avoid  be- 
ing known.  Shortly  after,  two  persons  are  seen  to  meet  in  this 
street,  without  ceremony  or  salutation,  and  in  a  hurried  manner  to 
converse  for  a  short  time;  then  to  separate,  and  run  off  with  great 
speed.  Now,  on  this  same  night,  a  gentleman  is  slain, — murdered 
in  his  bed, — his  house  being  entered  by  stealth  from  without;  and  his 
house  situated  within  300  feet  of  this  street.  The  windows  of  his 
chamber  were  in  plain  sight  from  this  street; — a  weapon  of  death  is 
afterwards  found  in  a  place  where  these  persons  were  seen  to  pass — 
in  a  retired  place,  around  which  they  had  been  seen  lingering.  It  is 
now  known,  that  this  murder  was  committed  by  a  conspiracy  of  four 
persons,  conspiring  together  for  this  purpose.  No  account  is  given 
who  these  suspected  persons  thus  seen  in  Brown  street  and  its  neigh- 
bourhood were.  Now,  I  ask,  gentlemen,  whether  you  or  any  man 
can  doubt,  that  this  murder  was  committed  by  the  persons  who  were 
thus  in  and  about  Brown  street  ?  Can  any  person  doubt  that  they  were 
there  for  purposes  connected  with  this  murder  ?  If  not  for  this  pur- 
pose, what  were  they  there  for?  When  there  is  a  cause  so  near  at 
hand,  why  wander  into  conjecture  for  an  explanation?  Common 
sense  requires  you  to  take  the  nearest  adequate  cause  for  a  known 
effect.  Who  were  these  suspicious  persons  in  Brown  street  ?  There 
was  something  extraordinary  about  them — something  noticeable,  and 
noticed  at  the  time — something  in  their  appearance  that  aroused  sus- 
picion. And  a  man  is  found  the  next  morning  murdered  in  the  near 
vicinity. 

Now,  so  long  as  no  other  account  shall  be  given  of  those  suspicious 
persons,  so  long  the  inference  must  remain  irresistible,  that  they 
were  the  murderers.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  it  is  already  shown 
that  this  murder  was  the  result  of  conspiracy,  and  of  concert;  let  it 
be  remembered,  that  the  house,  having  been  opened  from  within,  was 
entered,  by  stealth,  from  without.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  Brown 
street,  where  these  persons  were  repeatedly  seen,  under  such  suspi- 
cious circumstances,  was  a  place  from  which  every  occupied  room 
in  Mr.  White's  house  was  clearly  seen;  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
the  place,  though  thus  very  near  to  Mr.  White's  house,  was  a  retired 
and  lonely  place;  and  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  instrument  of 
death  was  afterwards  found  concealed,  very   near  the  same  spot. 

Must  not  every  man  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  these  persons, 
thus  seen  in  Brown  street,  were  the  murderers?  Every  man's  own 
judgment,  I  think,  must  satisfy  him  that  this  must  be  so.  It  is  a  plain 
deduction  of  common  sense.  It  is  a  point,  on  which  each  one  of  you 
may  reason  like  a  Hale,  or  a  Mansfield.  The  two  occurrences  ex- 
plain each  other.  The  murder  shows  why  these  persons  were  thus 
lurking,  at  that  hour,  in  Brown  street;  and  their  lurking  in  Brown 
street,  shows  who  committed  the  murder. 

If,  then,  the  persons  in  and  about  Brown  street,  were  the  plotters 
and  executers  of  the  murder  of  Capt.  White,  we  know  who  they 
were,  and  you  know  that  there  is  one  of  them. 

This  fearful  concatenation  of  circumstances  puts  him  to  an  account. 
He  was  a  conspirator.  He  had  entered  into  this  plan  of  murder. 
The  murder  is  committed,  and  he  is  known  to  have  been  within 


477 

three  minutes  walk  of  the  place.  He  must  account  for  himself,  ^o 
He  has  attempted  this,  and  failed.  Then,  with  all  these  general  rea- 
sons to  show  he  was  actually  in  Brown  street,  and  his  failures  in  his  r?^ 
alibi,  let  us  see  what  is  the  direct  proof  of  his  being  there.  But  first, 
let  me  ask,  is  it  not  very  remarkable,  that  there  is  no  attempt  to  show 
where  Richard  Crowninshield,  jr.  was  on  that  night?  We  hear 
nothing  of  him.  He  was  seen  in  none  of  his  usual  haunts,  about 
the  town.  Yet,  if  he  was  the  actual  perpetrator  of  the  murder, 
which  nobody  doubts,  he  was  in  the  town,  somewhere.  Can  you, 
therefore,  entertain  a  doubt,  that  he  was  one  of  the  persons  seen  in 
Brown  street?  And  as  to  the  prisoner,  you  will  recollect,  that  since 
the  testimony  of  the  young  men  has  failed  to  show  where  he  was 
that  evening,  the  last  we  hear  or  know  of  him,  on  the  day  preceding 
the  murder,  is,  that  at  four  o'clock  P.  M.  he  was  at  his  brother's,  in 
Wenham.  He  had  left  home,  after  dinner,  in  a  manner  doubtless 
designed  to  avoid  observation,  and  had  gone  to  Wenham,  probably 
by  way  of  Danvers.  As  we  hear  nothing  of  him,  after  four  o'clock, 
P.  M.  for  the  remainder  of  the  day  and  evening;  as  he  was  one  of 
the  conspirators; as  Richard  Crowninshield,  jr.  was  another;  as  Rich- 
ard Crowninshield,  jr.  was  in  town  in  the  evening,  and  yet  seen  in  no 
usual  place  of  resort,  the  inference  is  very  fair,  that  Richard  Crown- 
inshield, jr.  and  the  prisoner  were  together,  acting  in  execution  of 
their  conspiracy.  Of  the  four  conspirators,  J.  J.  Knapp,  jr.  was  at 
Wenham,  and  George  Crowninshield  has  been  accounted  for;  so 
that  if  the  persons  seen  in  Brown  street,  were  the  murderers,  one  of 
them  must  have  been  Richard  Crowninshield,  jr.  and  the  other  must 
have  been  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  Now,  as  to  the  proof  of  his  iden- 
tity with  one  of  the  persons  seen  in  Brown  street. 

Mr.  Mirick,  a  cautious  witness,  examined  the  person  he  saw,  close- 
ly, in  a  light  night,  and  says  that  he  thinks  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  is 
the  same  person;  and  that  he  should  not  hesitate  at  all,  if  he  were  seen 
in  the  same  dress.  His  opinion  is  formed,  partly  from  his  own  ob- 
servation, and  partly  from  the  description  of  others.  But  this  de- 
scription turns  out  to  be  only  in  regard  to  the  dress.  It  is  said,  that  ny* 
he  is  now  more  confident,  than  on  the  former  trial.  If  he  has  varied 
in  his  testimony,  make  such  allowance  as  you  may  think  proper.  I 
do  not  perceive  any  material  variance.  He  thought  him  the  same  y^ 
person,  when  he  was  first  brought  to  court,  and  as  he  saw  him  get 
out  of  the  chaise.  This  is  one  of  the  cases,  in  which  a  witness  is 
permitted  to  give  an  opinion.  This  witness  is  as  honest  as  your- 
selves— neither  willing  nor  swift;  but  he  says,  he  believes  it  was  the 
man — "this  is  my  opinion;"  and  this  it  is  proper  for  him  to  give. 
If  partly  founded  on  what  he  has  heard,  then  his  opinion  is  not  to  be 
taken;  but,  if  on  what  he  saw,  then  you  can  have  no  better  evidence. 
I  lay  no  stress  on  similarity  of  dress.  No  man  will  ever  be  hanged 
by  my  voice  on  such  evidence.  But  then  it  is  proper  to  notice,  that 
no  inferences  drawn  from  any  dissimilarity  of  dress,  can  be  given  in 
the  prisoner's  favor;  because,  in  fact,  the  person  seen  by  Mirick 
was  dressed  like  the  prisoner. 

The  description  of  the  person  seen  by  Mirick  answers  to  that  of 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  In  regard  to  the  supposed  discrepancy  of 
statements,  before  and  now,  there  would  be  no  end  to  such  minute 


478 

inquiries.  It  would  not  be  strange  if  witnesses  should  vary.  I  do 
not  think  much  of  slight  shades  of  variation.  If  I  believe  the  wit- 
ness is  honest,  that  is  enough.  If  he  has  expressed  himself  more 
strongly  now  than  then,  this  does  not  prove  him  false. 

Peter  E.  Webster  saw  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  as  he  then  thought, 
and  still  thinks,  walking  in  Howard  street  at  half  past  nine  o'clock. 
He  then  thought  it  was  Frank  Knapp,  and  has  not  altered  his  opin- 
ion since.  He  knew  him  well;  he  had  long  known  him.  If  he  then 
thought  it  was  he,  this  goes  far  to  prove  it.  He  observed  him 
the  more,  as  it  was  unusual  to  see  gentlemen  walk  there  at  that 
hour.  It  was  a  retired,  lonely  street.  Now,  is  there  reasonable 
doubt  that  Mr.  Webster  did  see  him  there  that  night  ?  How  can  you 
have  more  proof  than  this?  He  judged  by  his  walk,  by  his  general 
appearance,  by  his  deportment.  We  all  judge  in  this  manner.  If 
you  believe  he  is  right,  it  goes  a  great  way  in  this  case.  But  then 
this  person  it  is  said  had  a  cloak  on,  and  that  he  could  not,  there- 
fore, be  the  same  person  that  Mirick  saw.  If  we  were  treating  of 
men  that  had  no  occasion  to  disguise  themselves  or  their  conduct, 
there  might  be  something  in  this  argument.  But  as  it  is,  there  is 
little  in  it.  It  may  be  presumed,  that  they  would  change  their  dress. 
This  would  help  their  disguise.  What  is  easier  than  to  throw  off  a 
irP  cloak,  and  again  put  it  on?  Perhaps  he  was  less  fearful  of  being 
+  J*       known  when  alone,  than  when  with  the  perpetrator. 

Mr.  Southwick,  swears  all  that  a  man  can  swear.  He  has  the 
best  means  of  judging  that  could  be  had  at  the  time.  He  tells  you 
that  he  left  his  father's  house  at  half  past  ten  o'clock,  and  as  he  pas- 
sed to  his  own  house  in  Brown  street,  he  saw  a  man  sitting  on  the  steps 
of  theropewalk,  &c.  &c. — that  he  passed  him  three  times,  and  each 
time  he  held  down  his  head,  so  that  he  did  not  see  his  face.  That 
the  man  had  on  a  cloak,  which  was  not  wrapped  around  him,  and 
a  glazed  cap.  That  he  took  the  man  to  be  Frank  Knapp  at  the 
time;  that  when  he  went  into  his  house,  he  told  his  wife  that  he  thought 
it  was  Frank  Knapp;  that  he  knew  him  well,  having  known  him  from 
a  boy.  And  his  wife  swears  that  he  did  so  tell  her  at  the  time. 
What  could  mislead  this  witness  at  the  time  ?  He  was  not  then  sus- 
pecting Frank  Knapp  of  anything.  He  could  not  then  be  influenced 
by  any  prejudice.  If  you  believe  that  the  witness  saw  Frank  Knapp 
in  this  position,  at  this  time,  it  proves  the  case.  Whether  you  be- 
lieve it  or  not,  depends  upon  the  credit  of  the  witness.  He  swears 
it.  If  true,  it  is  solid  evidence.  Mrs.  Southwick  supports  her  hus- 
band. Are  they  true?  Are  they  worthy  of  belief?  If  he  deserves 
the  epithets  applied  to  him,  then  he  ought  not  to  be  believed.  In 
this  fact,  they  cannot  be  mistaken, — they  are  right,  or  they  are  per- 
jured. As  to  his  not  speaking  to  Frank  Knapp,  that  depends  upon 
their  intimacy.  But  a  very  good  reason  is,  Frank  chose  to  disguise  him- 
self. This  makes  nothing  against  his  credit.  But  it  is  said  that  he 
should  not  be  believed.  And  why?  Because,  it  is  said,  he  himself 
now  tells  you  that  when  he  testified  before  the  grand  jury  at  Ipswich, 
he  did  not  then  say  that  he  thought  the  person  he  saw  in  Brown 
street  was  Frank  Knapp,  but  that  "  the  person  was  about  the  size  of 
Selman."  The  means  of  attacking  him,  therefore,  come  from  him- 
self.    If  he  is  a  false  man,  why  should  he  tell  truths  against  himself? 


479 

they  rely  on  his  veracity  to  prove  that  he  is  a  liar.  Before  you  can 
come  to  this  conclusion,  you  will  consider,  whether  all  the  circum- 
stances are  now  known,  that  should  have  a  bearing  on  this  point. 
Suppose  that  when  he  was  before  the  grand  jury  he  was  asked  by  the 
attorney  this  question,  u  was  the  person  you  saw  in  Brown  street 
about  the  size  of  Selman  ?"  and  he  answered,  yes.  This  was  all  true. 
Suppose  also  that  he  expected  to  be  inquired  of  further,  and  no  fur- 
ther questions  were  put  to  him?  Would  it  not  be  extremely  hard  to 
impute  to  him  perjury  for  this?  It  is  not  uncommon  for  witnesses, 
to  think  that  they  have  done  all  their  duty,  when  they  have  answered 
the  questions  put  to  them?  But  suppose  that  we  admit,  that  he  did 
not  then  tell  all  he  knew,  this  does  not  affect  the/ad  at  all;  because 
he  did  tell,  at  the  time,  in  the  hearing  of  others,  that  the  person  he 
saw  was  Frank  Knapp.  There  is  not  the  slightest  suggestion  against 
the  veracity  or  accuracy  of  Mrs.  Southwick.  Now,  she  swears  pos- 
itively, that  her  husband  came  into  the  house  and  told  her  that  he 
had  seen  a  person,  on  the  ropewalk  steps,  and  believed  it  was 
Frank  Knapp. 

It  is  said,  that  Mr.  Southwick  is  contradicted,  also,  by  Mr.  Shil- 
laber.  I  do  not  so  understand  Mr.  Shillaber's  testimony.  I  think 
what  they  both  testify  is  reconcilable,  and  consistent.  My  learned 
brother  said  on  a  similar  occasion,  that  there  is  more  probability  in  - 
such  cases,  that  the  persons  hearing  should  misunderstand,  than  that 
the  person  speaking,  should  contradict  himself.  I  think  the  same 
remarks  applicable  here. 

You  have  all  witnessed  the  uncertainty  of  testimony,  when  wit- 
nesses are  called  to  testify  what  other  witnesses  said.  Several  re- 
spectable counsellors  have  been  called  on,  on  this  occasion,  to  give 
testimony  of  that  sort.  They  have,  every  one  of  them,  given  diffe- 
rent versions.  They  all  took  minutes  at  the  time,  and  without  doubt 
intend  to  state  the  truth.  But  still  they  differ.  Mr.  Shillaber's 
version  is  different  from  everything  that  Southwick  has  stated  else- 
where. But  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  slight  variations  in  tes- 
timony, unless  they  are  manifestly  intentional.  I  think  that  Mr. 
Shillaber  must  be  satisfied  that  he  did  not  rightly  understand  Mr. 
Southwick.  I  confess  I  misunderstood  Mr.  Shillaber  on  the  former 
trial,  if  I  now  rightly  understand  him.  I  therefore,  did  not  then  re- 
call Mr.  Southwick  to  the  stand.  Mr.  Southwick,  as  I  read  it,  un- 
derstood Mr.  Shillaber  as  asking  him  about  a  person  coming  out  of 
Newbury  street,  and  whether,  for  aught  he  knew,  it  might  not  be 
Richard-'  Crowninshield,  jr.  He  answered  that  he  could  not  tell. 
He  did  not  understand  Mr.  Shillaber,  as  questioning  him,  as  to  the 
person,  whom  he  saw  sitting  on  the  steps  of  the  ropewalk.  South- 
wick, on  this  trial,  having  heard  Mr.  Shillaber,  has  been  recalled  to 
the  stand,  and  states  that  Mr.  Shillaber  entirely  misunderstood  him. 
This  is  certainly  most  probable,  because  the  controlling  fact  in  the 
case  is  not  controverted;  that  is,  that  Southwick  did  tell  his  wife,  at 
the  very  moment  he  entered  his  house,  that  he  had  seen  a  person  on 
the  ropewalk  steps,  whom  he  believed  to  be  Frank  Knapp.  Nothing 
can  prove,  with  more  certainty  than  this,  that  Southwick,  at  the  time, 
thought  the  person  whom  he  thus  saw,  to  be  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 

Mr.  Bray  is  an  acknowledged  accurate  and  intelligent  witness. 


1  '\ 


480 


He  was  highly  complimented  by  my  brother,  on  the  former  trial,  al- 
though he  now  charges  him  with  varying  his  testimony.  What  could 
be  his  motive  ?  You  will  be  slow  in  imputing  to  him  any  design  of 
this  kind.  I  deny  altogether,  that  there  is  any  contradiction. — 
There  may  be  differences,  but  not  contradiction.  These  arise  from 
the  difference  in  the  questions  put;  the  difference  between  believing 
and  knowing.  On  the  first  trial,  he  said  he  did  not  know  the  person, 
and  now  says  the  same.  Then  we  did  not  do  all  we  had  a  right  to 
do.  We  did  not  ask  him  who  he  thought  it  was.  Now,  when  so 
asked,  he  says  he  believes  it  was  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  If  he  had 
then  been  asked  this  question,  he  would  have  given  the  same  answer. 
That  he  has  expressed  himself  stronger,  I  admit;  but  he  has  not 
contradicted  himself.  He  is  more  confident  now;  and  that  is  all. 
A  man  may  not  assert  a  thing,  and  still  not  have  any  doubt  upon  it. 
Cannot  every  man  see  this  distinction  to  be  consistent  ?  I  leave 
him  in  that  attitude;  that  only  is  the  difference.  On  questions  of 
identity,  opinion  is  evidence.  We  may  ask  the  witness,  either  if  he 
knew  who  the  person  seen  was,  or  who  he  thinks  he  was.  And  he 
may  well  answer,  as  Capt.  Bray  has  answered,  that  he  does  not 
know  who  it  was,  but  that  he  thinks  it.  was  the  prisoner. 

We  have  offered  to  produce  witnesses  to  prove,  that  as  soon  as 
Bray  saw  the  prisoner,  he  pronounced  him  the  same  person.  We 
are  not  at  liberty  to  call  them  to  corroborate  our  own  witness.  How 
then  could  this  fact  of  prisoner's  being  in  Brown  street,  be  better 
proved  ?  If  ten  witnesses  had  testified  to  it,  it  would  be  no  better. 
Two  men,  who  knew  him  well,  took  it  to  be  Frank  Knapp,  and  one 
of  them  so  said,  when  there  was  nothing  to  mislead  them.  Two 
others,  that  examined  him  closely,  now  swear  to  their  opinion,  that 
he  is  the  man. 

Miss  Jaqueth,  saw  three  persons  pass  by  the  ropewalk,  several 
evenings  before  the  murder.  She  saw  one  of  them  pointing  towards 
Mr.  White's  house.  She  noticed  that  another  had  something  which 
appeared  to  be  like  an  instrument  of  music ;  that  he  put  it  behind 
him,  and  attempted  to  conceal  it.  Who  were  these  persons  ?  This 
was  but  a  few  steps  from  the  place  where  this  apparent  instrument 
of  music  (of  music  such  as  Richard  Crovvninshield,  jr.  spoke  of  to 
Palmer)  was  afterwards  found.  These  facts  prove  this  a  point  of 
rendezvous  for  these  parties.  They  show  Brown  street  to  have 
been  the  place  for  consultation,  and  observation;  and  to  this  purpose 
•"V.     it  was  well  suited. 

Mr.  Burns's  testimony  is  also  important.  What  was  the  defend- 
ant's object,  in  his  private  conversation  with  Burns  ?  He  knew  that 
Burns  was  out  that  night  ;  that  he  lived  near  Brown  street,  and  that 
he  had  probably  seen  him;  and  he  wished  him  to  say  nothing.  He 
said  to  Burns,  "  if  you  saw  any  of  your  friends  out  that  night,  say 
nothing  about  it;  my  brother  Jo.  and  I  are  your  friends."  This  is 
plain  proof,  that  he  wished  to  say  to  him,  if  you  saw  me  in  Brown 
street  that  night,  say  nothing  about  it. 

But  it  is  said  that  Burns  ought  not  to  be  believed,  because  he 
mistook  the  color  of  the  dagger,  and  because  he  has  varied  in  his 
description  of  it.  These  are  slight  circumstances,  if  his  general 
character  be  good.     To  my  mind  they  are  of  no  importance.     It  is 


481 

for  you  to  make  what  deduction  you  may  think  proper,  on  this  ac- 
count, from  the  weight  of  his  evidence.  His  conversation  with  . 
Burns,  if  Burns  is  believed,  shows  two  things;  first,  that  he  desired 
Burns  not  to  mention  it,  if  he  had  seen  him  on  the  night  of  the  mur- 
der; second,  that  he  wished  to  fix  the  charge  of  murder  on  Mr. 
Stephen  White.     Both  of  these  prove  his  own  guilt. 

I  think  you  will  be  of  opinion,  gentlemen,  that  Brown  street  was 
a.  probable  place  for  the  conspirators  to  assemble,  and  for  an  aid  to 
be.  If  we  knew  their  whole  plan,  and  if  we  were  skilled  to  judge 
in  such  a  case,  then  we  could  perhaps  determine  on  this  point  better. 
But  it  is  a  retired  place,  and  still  commands  a  full  view  of  the  house  ;  t^ 
— a  lonely  place,  but  still  a  place  of  observation.  Not  so  lonely  that 
a  person  would  excite  suspicion  to  be  seen  walking  there  in  an  or- 
dinary manner  ; — not  so  public  as  to  be  noticed  by  many.  It  is  near 
enough  to  the  scene  of  action  in  point  of  law.  It  was  their  point  of 
centrality.  The  club  was  found  near  the  spot — in  a  place  provided 
for  it — in  a  place  that  had  been  previously  hunted  out — in  a  concer- 
ted place  of  concealment.  Here  was  their  point  of  rendezvous — Here 
might  the  lights  be  seen — Here  might  an  aid  be  secreted — Here 
was  he  within  call — Here  might  he  be  aroused  by  the  sound  of  the 
whistle — Here  might  he  carry  the  weapon — Here  might  he  receive 
the  murderer,  after  the  murder. 

0  Then,  gentlemen,  the  general  question  occurs,  is  it  satisfactorily  y 
proved,  by  all  these  facts  and  circumstances,  that  the  defendant  was 
in  and  about  Brown  street,  on  the  night  of  the  murder  ?  Consider- 
ing, that  the  murder  was  effected  by  a  conspiracy; — considering, 
that  he  was  one  of  the  four  conspirators; — considering,  that  two  of 
the  conspirators  have  accounted  for  themselves,  on  the  night  of  the 
murder,  and  were  not  in  Brown  street; — considering  that  the  pris- 
oner does  not  account  for  himself,  nor  show  where  he  was; — con- 
sidering that  Richard  Crowninshield,  the  other  conspirator,  and  the 
perpetrator,  is  not  accounted  for,  nor  shown  to  be  elsewhere; — con- 
sidering, that  it  is  now  past  all  doubt  that  two  persons  were  seen  in 
and  about  Brown  street,  at  different  times,  lurking,  avoiding  obser- 
vation, and  exciting  so  much  suspicion  that  the  neighbours  actually  J^v^ 
watched  them; — considering,  that  if  these  persons,  thus  lurking  in 
Brown  street,  at  that  hour,  were  not  the  murderers,  it  remains,  to 
this  day,  wholly  unknown  who  they  were,  or  what  their  business 
was; — considering  the  testimony  of  Miss  Jaqueth,  and  that  the  club 
was  afterwards  found  near  this  place; — considering,  finally,  that 
Webster  and  Southwick  saw  these  persons,  and  then  took  one  of 
them  for  the  defendant,  and  that  Southwick  then  told  his  wife  so, 
and  that  Bray  and  Mirick  examined  them  closely,  and  now  swear  to 
their  belief  that  the  prisoner  was  one  of  them  ;  it  is  for  you  to  say, 
putting  these  considerations  together,  whether  you  believe  the  pris- 
oner was  actually  in  Brown  street,  at  the  time  of  the  murder. 

By  the  counsel  for  the  defendant,  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  TL+  A 
the  question,  whether  Brown  street  was  a  place  in  which  aid  could 
be  given  ?  a  place  in  which  actual  assistance  could  be  rendered  in.  J. 
this  transaction  ?     This  must  be  mainly  decided,  by  their  own  opin- 
ion  who  selected  the  place;  by  what  they  thought   at  the  time,  ac- 
cording to  their  plan  of  operation. 

61  RE 


M 


482 

If  it  was  agreed  that  the  prisoner  should  be  there  to  assist,  it 
is  enough.  If  they  thought  the  place  proper  for  their  purpose, 
according  to  their  plan,  it  is  sufficient. 

Suppose  we  could  prove  expressly,  that  they  agreed  that  Frank 
should  be  there,  and  he  was  there  ;  and  you  should  think  it  not  a 
well  chosen  place,  for  aiding  and  abetting,  must  he  be  acquitted  ? 
No  ! — it  is  not  what  /  think,  or  you  think,  of  the  appropriateness  of 
the  place — it  is  what  they  thought  at  the  time. 

If  the  prisoner  was  in  Brown  street,  by  appointment  and  agree- 
ment with  the  perpetrator,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  assistance,  if 
assistance  should  be  needed,  it  may  safely  be  presumed  that  the 
place  was  suited  to  such  assistance,  as  it  was  supposed  by  the  par- 
ties might  chance  to  become  requisite. 

If  in  Brown  street,  was  he  there  by  appointment  ?  was  he  there 
to  aid,  if  aid  were  necessary  ?  was  he  there  for,  or  against,  the 
,  -  ^  murderer  ?  to  concur,  or  to  oppose  ?  to  favor  or  to  thwart  ?  Did 
the  perpetrator  know  he  was  there — there  waiting  ?  If  so,  then  it 
follows,  he  was  there  by  appointment.  He  was  at  the  post,  half  an 
hour  ;  he  was  waiting  for  somebody.  This  proves  appointment — 
arrangement — previous  agreement;  then  it  follows,  he  was  there  to 
aid, — to  encourage, — to  embolden  the  perpetrator,  and  that  is 
enough.  If  he  were  in  such  a  situation  as  to  afford  aid,  or  that  he 
was  relied  upon  for  aid, — then  he  was  aiding  and  abetting.  It  i% 
enough,  that  the  conspirator  desired  to  have  him  there.  Besides,  it 
may  be  well  said,  that  he  could  afford  just  as  much  aid  there,  as  if 
he  had  been  in  Essex  street — as  if  he  had  been  standing  even  at  the 
gate,  or  at  the  window.  It  was  not  an  act  of  power  against  power 
that  was  to  be  done, — it  was  a  secret  act,  to  be  done  by  stealth. 
The  aid  was  to  be  placed  in  a  position  secure  from  observation  : — 
It  was  important  to  the  security  of  both,  that  he  should  be  in  a  lone- 
ly place.  Now,  it  is  obvious,  that  there  are  many  purposes  for 
which  he  might  be  in  Brown  street. 

1.  Richard  Crowninshield  might  have  been  secreted  in  the  gar- 
den, and  waiting  for  a  signal. 

2.  Or  he  might  be  in  Brown  street,  to  advise  him  as  to  the  time 
of  making  his  entry  into  the  house. 

3.  Or  to  favor  his  escape. 

4.  Or  to  see  if  the  street  was  clear  when  he  came  out. 

5.  Or  to  conceal  the  weapon  or  the  clothes. 

6.  To  be  ready  for  any  other  unforeseen  contingency. 
Richard  Crowninshield  lived  in  Danvers — he  would  retire  the  most 

secret  way.     Brown  street  is  that  way;  if  you  find  him  there,  can 
you  doubt,  why  he  was  there  ! 

If,  gentlemen,  the  prisoner  went  into  Brown  street,  by  appoint- 
ment with  the  perpetrator,  to  render  aid  or  encouragement,  in  any 
of  these  ways,  he  was  present,  in  legal  contemplation,  aiding  and 
abetting,  in  this  murder.  It  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  have 
done  anything;  it  is  enough,  that  he  was  ready  to  act,  and  in  a  place 
to  act.  If  his  being  in  Brown  street,  by  appointment,  at  the  time  of 
the  murder,  emboldened  the  purpose,  and  encouraged  the  heart  of 
the  murderer,  by  the  hope  of  instant  aid,  if  aid  should  become  neces- 


483 

sary,  then,  without  doubt,  he  was  present,  aiding  and  abetting,  and 
was  a  principal  in  the  murder.  , 

■*         I  now  proceed,  gentlemen,  to  the  consideration  of  the  testimony  i/^  VJ 
of  Mr.  Colman.     Although  this  evidence  bears  on  every  material        j  < 
part  of  the  cause,  I  have  purposely  avoided  every  comment  on  it,  !>'  J 
till  the  present  moment,  when  I  have  done  with  the  other  evidence  in 
the  case.     As  to  the  admission  of  this  evidence,  there  has  been  a 
great  struggle,  and  its  importance  demanded  it.     The  general  rule 
of  law  is,  that  confessions  are  to  be  received  as  evidence.     They  .     ,/f 
are  entitled  to  great  or  to  little  consideration,  according  to  the  circum-  ^* 
stances  under  which  they  are  made.     Voluntary,  deliberate  confes- 
sions are  the  most  important  and  satisfactory  evidence.     But  confes- 
sions, hastily  made,  or  improperly  obtained,  are  entitled  to  little  or 
no  consideration.     It  is  always  to  be  inquired,  whether  they  were 
purely  voluntary,  or  were  made  under  any  undue  influence  of  hope 
or  fear;  for,  in  general,  if  any  influence  were  exerted  on  the  mind  of 
the  person  confessing,  such  confessions  are  not  to  be  submitted  to  a 
jury. 

Who  is  Mr.  Colman?  He  is  an  intelligent,  accurate,  and  cau- 
tious witness.  A  gentleman  of  high  and  well  known  character;  and 
of  unquestionable  veracity.  As  a  clergyman,  highly  respectable;  as 
a  man,  of  fair  name  and  fame. 

Why  was  Mr.  Colman  with  the  prisoner?  Joseph  J.  Knapp  was  * 
his  parishioner;  he  was  the  head  of  a  family,  and  had  been  mar-  ' 
ried  by  Mr.  Colman.  The  interests  of  his  family  were  dear  to  him. 
^  .  He  felt  for  their  afflictions,  and  was  anxious  to  alleviate  their  suf- 
ferings. He  went  from  the  purest  and  best  of  motives  to  visit  Jo- 
seph Knapp.  He  came  to  save,  not  to  destroy;  to  rescue,  not  to 
take  away  life.  In  this  family,  he  thought  there  might  be  a  chance 
to  save  one.  It  is  a  misconstruction  of  Mr.  Colman's  motives,  at 
once  the  most  strange  and  the  most  uncharitable,  a  perversion  of  all 
just  views  of  his  conduct  and  intentions,  the  most  unaccountable,  to 
represent  him  as  acting,  on  this  occasion,  in  hostility  to  any  one,  or 
as  desirous  of  injuring  or  endangering  any  one.  He  has  stated  his 
own  motives,  and  his  own  conduct,  in  a  manner  to  command  univer- 
sal belief,  and  universal  respect.  For  intelligence,  for  consistency, 
for  accuracy,  for  caution,  for  candor,  never  did  witness  acquit  himself 
better,  or  stand  fairer.  In  all  that  he  did,  as  a  man,  and  all  he  has 
said,  as  a  witness,  he  has  shown  himself  worthy  of  entire  regard. 

Now,  gentlemen,  very  important  confessions  made  by  the  prisoner, 
are  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Colman.  They  were  made  in  the  prisoner's 
cell,  where  Mr.  Colman  had  gone  with  the  prisoner's  brother,  N. 
P.  Knapp.  Whatever  conversation  took  place,  was  in  the  presence 
of  N.  P.  Knapp.  Now,  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner,  two  things  are 
asserted;  first,  that  such  inducements  were  suggested  to  the  prison- 
er, in  this  interview,  that  any  confessions  by  him  ought  not  to  be  re- 
ceived. Second,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  he  made  no  such  confessions, 
as  Mr.  Colman  testifies  to,  nor,  indeed,  any  confessions  at  all.  These 
two  propositions  are  attempted  to  be  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
N.  P.  Knapp.  These  two  witnesses,  Mr.  Colman  and  N.  P.  Knapp, 
differ  entirely.  There  is  no  possibility  of  reconciling  them.  No 
charity  can  cover  both.     One  or  the  other  has  sworn  falsely.     If  N. 


if 


484 

P.  Knapp  be  believed,  Mr.  Colman's  testimony  must  be  wholly  dis- 
regarded.    It  is,  then,  a  question  of  credit,  a  question  of  belief,  be- 
tween the  two  witnesses.     As  you  decide  between  these,  so  you 
will  decide  on  all  this  part  of  the  case. 
,  v°  Mr.  Colman  has  given  you  a  plain  narrative,  a  consistent  account, 

and  has  uniformly  stated  the  same  things.     He  is  not  contradicted 

J*  i  ky  anything  in  the  case,  except  Phippen  Knapp.     He  is  influenced 
*    j    as  far  as  we  can  see  by  no  bias,  or  prejudice,  any  more  than  other 
men,  except  so  far  as  his  character  is  now  at  stake.     He  has  feelings 
^*  on  this  point,  doubtless,  and  ought  to  have.     If  what  he  has  stated 
J    be  not  true,  I  cannot  see  any  ground  for  his  escape.     If  he  be  a  true 
r       man,  he  must  have  heard  what  he  testifies.     No  treachery  of  mem-  *? 
ory,  brings  to  memory  things  that  never  took  place.     There  is  no 

X*A  reconciling  his  evidence  with  good  intention,  if  the  facts  are  not  as 
he  states  them.     He  is  on  trial,  as  to  his  veracity. 

The  relation  in  which  the  other  witness  stands,  deserves  your 
careful  consideration.  He  is  a  member  of  the  family.  He  has  the 
lives  of  two  brothers  depending,  as  he  may  think,  on  the  effect  of 
his  evidence; — depending,  on  every  word  he  speaks.  I  hope  he  has 
not  another  responsibility,  resting  upon  him.  By  the  advice  of  a 
friend,  and  that  friend  Mr.  Colman,  J.  Knapp  made  a  full  and  free 
confession,  and  obtained  a  promise  of  pardon.  He  has  since,  as  you 
know,  probably  by  the  advice  of  other  friends,  retracted  that  confes- 
sion, and  rejected  the  offered  pardon.  Events  will  show,  who  of  these 
friends  and  advisers,  advised  him  best,  and  befriended  him  most.  In 
the  meantime,  if  this  brother,  the  witness,  be  one  of  these  advisers, 
and  advised  the  retraction,  he  has,  most  emphatically,  the  lives  of 
his  brothers,  resting  upon  his  evidence,  and  upon  his  conduct.  Com- 
pare the  situation  of  these  two  witnesses.  Do  you  not  see  mighty 
motive  enough  on  the  one  side,  and  want  of  all  motive  on  the  other? 
I  would  gladly  find  an  apology  for  that  witness,  in  his  agonized  feel- 
ings,— in  his  distressed  situation; — in  the  agitation  of  that  hour,  or 
of  this.  I  would  gladly  impute  it  to  error,  or  to  want  of  recollec- 
tion, to  confusion  of  mind,  or  disturbance  of  feeling. — I  would  glad- 
ly impute  to  any  pardonable  source,  that  which  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled to  facts,  and  to  truth;  but,  even  in  a  case  calling  for  so  much 
sympathy,  justice  must  yet  prevail,  and  we  must  come  to  the  conclu 
sion,  however  reluctantly,  which  that  demands  from  us. 
i  It  is  said,  Phippen  Knapp  was  probably  correct,  because  he  knew 
he  should  be  called  as  a  witness.     Witness — to  what?     When  he 

f  V.  says  there  was  no  confession,  what  could  he  expect  to  bear  witness 
of?  But  I  do  not  put  it  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  hear;  I  am 
compelled  to  put  it  on  the  other  ground — that  he  did  hear,  and  does 

^  not  now  truly  tell  what  he  heard. 

V  If  Mr.  Colman  were  out  of  the  case,  there  are  other  reasons  why 

3  the  story  of  Phippen  Knapp  should  not  be  believed.     It  has  in  it 

inherent  improbabilities.  It  is  unnatural,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
\k  accompanying  circumstances.  He  tells  you  that  they  went  "  to  the 
cell  of  Frank,  to  see  if  he  had  any  objection  to  taking  a  trial,  and 
suffering  his  brother  to  accept  the  offer  of  pardon:"  in  other  words, 
to  obtain  Frank's  consent  to  Joseph's  making  a  confession;  and  in 

^&  case  this  consent  was  not  obtained,  that  the  pardon  would  be  offered 


485 

to  Frank,  &c.  Did  they  bandy  about  the  chance  of  life,  between 
these  two,  in  this  way  ?  Did  Mr.  Colman,  after  having  given  this 
pledge  to  Joseph,  after  having  received  a  disclosure  from  Joseph, 
go  to  the  cell  of  Frank  for  such  a  purpose  as  this  ?  It  is  impossi- 
ble; it  cannot  be  so.  w 

Again:  We  know  that  Mr.  Colman  found  the  club  the  next  day;  ***** 
that  he  went  directly  to  the  place  of  deposit,  and  found  it  at  the  first  ,  I 
attempt, — exactly  where  he  says  he  had  been  informed  it  was.  Now^v 
Phippen  Knapp  says,  that  Frank  had  stated  nothing  respecting  the 
club,  that  it  was  not  mentioned  in  that  conversation.  He  says,  also, 
that  he  was  present  in  the  cell  of  Joseph  all  the  time  that  Mr.  Col- 
man was  there,  that  he  believes  he  heard  all  that  was  said  in  Joseph's 
cell;  and  that  he  did  not  himself  know  where  the  club  was,  and  never 
had  known  where  it  was,  until  he  heard  it  stated  in  court.  Now,  it 
is  certain,  that  Mr.  Colman  says,  he  did  not  learn  the  particular 
place  of  deposit  of  the  club  from  Joseph;  that  he  only  learned  from 
him  that  it  was  deposited  under  the  steps  of  the  Howard  street 
meeting-house,  without  defining  the  particular  steps.  It  is  certain, 
also,  that  he  had  more  knowledge  of  the  position  of  the  club,  than 
this — else  how  could  he  have  placed  his  hand  on  it  so  readily? — and 
where  else  could  he  have  obtained  this  knowledge,  except  from 
Frank  ?  [Here  Mr.  Dexter  said  that  Mr.  Colman  had  had  other 
interviews  with  Joseph,  and  might  have  derived  the  information  from 
him  at  previous  visits.  Mr.  Webster  replied,  that  Mr.  Colman  had 
testified  that  he  learned  nothing  in  relation  to  the  club  until  this  vis- 
it. Mr.  Dexter,  denied  there  being  any  such  testimony.  Mr.  Col- 
man's  evidence  was  then  read  from  the  notes  of  the  judges,  and  sev- 
eral other  persons,  and  Mr.  Webster  then  proceeded.] — My  point  is, 
to  show  that  Phippen  Knapp's  story  is  not  true,  is  not  consistent 
with  itself.  That  taking  it  for  granted,  as  he  says,  that  he  heard  all 
that  was  said  to  Mr.  Colman  in  both  cells,  by  Joseph,  and  by  Frank; 
and  that  Joseph  did  not  state  particularly  where  the  club  was  deposit- 
ed; and  that  he  knew  as  much  about  the  place  of  deposit  of  the  club, 
as  Mr.  Colman  knew;  why  then,  Mr.  Colman  must  either  have  been 
miraculously  informed  respecting  the  club,  or  Phippen  Knapp  has 
not  told  you  the  whole  truth.  There  is  no  reconciling  this,  without 
supposing  Mr.  Colman  has  misrepresented  what  took  place  in  Jo- 
seph's cell,  as  well  as  what  took  place  in  Frank's  cell. 

Again:  Phippen  Knapp  is  directly  contradicted  by  Mr.  Wheat- 
land. Mr.  Wheatland  tells  the  same  story  as  coming  from  Phippen 
Knapp,  as  Mr.  Colman  now  tells.  Here  there  are  two  against  one. 
Phippen  Knapp  says  that  Frank  made  no  confessions,  and  that  he 
said  he  had  none  to  make.  In  this  he  is  contradicted  by  Wheatland. 
He,  Phippen  Knapp,  told  Wheatland,  4hat  Mr.  Colman  did  ask 
Frank  some  questions,  and  that  Frank  answered  them.  He  told 
him  also  what  these  answers  were.  Wheatland  does  not  recollect 
the  questions  or  answers,  but  recollects  his  reply;  which  was,  "  Is 
not  this  premature?  I  think  this  answer  is  sufficient  to  make  Frank 
a  principal."  Here  Phippen  Knapp  opposes  himself  to  Wheatland, 
as  well  as  to  Mr.  Colman.  Do  you  believe  Phippen  Knapp,  against 
these  two  respectable  witnesses — or  them  against  him? 

RR* 


486 

Is  not  Mr.  Colman's testimony  credible,  natural,  and  proper?  To 
judge  of  this,  you  must  go  back  to  that  scene. 

The  murder  had  been  committed;  the  two  Knapps  were  now  ar- 
rested; four  persons  were  already  in  gaol  supposed  to  be  concerned 
in  it — the  Crowninshields  and  Selman  and  Chase.  Another  person 
at  the  eastward  was  supposed  to  be  in  the  plot;  it  was  important  to 
learn  the  facts.  To  do  this,  some  one  of  those  suspected  must  be 
admitted  to  turn  states'  witness.  The  contest  was,  who  should  have 
this  privilege?  It  was  understood  that  it  was  about  to  be  offered  to 
Palmer,  then  in  Maine:  there  was  no  good  reason  why  he  should 
have  the  preference.  Mr.  Colman  felt  interested  for  the  family  of 
the  Knapps,  and  particularly  for  Joseph.  He  was  a  young  man 
who  had  hitherto  sustained  a  fair  standing  in  society;  he  was  a  hus- 
band. Mr.  Colman  was  particularly  intimate  with  his  family.  With 
these  views  he  went  to  the  prison.  He  believed  that  he  might  safe- 
ly converse  with  the  prisoner,  because  he  thought  confessions  made 
to  a  clergyman  were  sacred,  and  that  he  could  not  be  called  upon  to 
disclose  them.  He  went,  the  first  time,  in  the  morning,  and  was 
requested  to  come  again.  He  went  again  at  three  o'clock;  and  was 
requested  to  call  again  at  five  o'clock.  In  the  meantime  he  saw  the 
father  and  Phippen,  and  they  wished  he  would  not  go  again,  be- 
cause it  would  be  said  the  prisoners  were  making  confession.  He 
said  he  had  engaged  to  go  again  at  five  o'clock;  but  would  not,  if  Phip- 
pen would  excuse  him  to  Joseph.  Phippen  engaged  to  do  this,  and 
to  meet  him  at  his  office  at  five  o'clock.  Mr.  Colman  went  to  the 
office  at  the  time,  and  waited;  but  as  Phippen  was  not  there,  he  walk- 
ed down  street  and  saw  him  coming  from  the  gaol.  He  met  him, 
and  while  in  conversation,  near  the  church,  he  saw  Mrs.  Beckford 
and  Mrs.  Knapp,  going  in  a  chaise  towards  the  gaol.  He  hastened 
to  meet  them,  as  he  thought  it  not  proper  for  them  to  go  in  at  that 
time.  While  conversing  with  them  near  the  gaol,  he  received  two 
distinct  messages  from  Joseph,  that  he  wished  to  see  him.  He 
thought  it  proper  to  go:  he  then  went  to  Joseph's  cell,  and  while 
there  it  was  that  the  disclosures  were  made.  Before  Joseph  had 
finished  his  statement,  Phippen  came  to  the  door;  he  was  soon  after 
•admitted.  A  short  interval  ensued,  and  they  went  together  to  the 
cell  of  Frank.  Mr.  Colman  went  in  by  invitation  of  Phippen:  he 
had  come  directly  from  the  cell  of  Joseph,  where  he  had  for  the  first 
time  learned  the  incidents  of  the  tragedy.  He  was  incredulous  as 
to  some  of  the  facts  which  he  had  learned,  they  were  so  different 
from  his  previous  impressions.  He  was  desirous  of  knowing  wheth- 
er he  could  place  confidence  in  what  Joseph  had  told  him — he  there- 
fore put  the  questions  to  Frank,  as  he  has  testified  before  you;  in 
answer  to  which,  Frank  Knapp  informed  him, 

1 .  "  That  the  murder  took  place  between  ten  and  eleven  o'clock." 

2.  "  That  Richard  Crowninshield  was  alone  in  the  house." 

3.  "  That  he,  Frank  Knapp,  went  home  afterwards." 

4.  "  That  the  club  was  deposited  under  the  steps  of  the  Howard 
street  meeting-house,  and  under  the  part  nearest  the  burying  ground, 
in  a  rat  hole,  &c." 

5.  "  That  the  dagger  or  daggers  had  been  worked  up  at  the  fac- 
tory." 


487 

It  is  said  that  these  five  answers  just  fit  the  case;  that  they  are    /k 


just  what  was  wanted,  and  neither  more  or  less.  True,  they  are, 
but  the  reason  is,  because  truth  always  fits:  truth  is  always  congru- 
ous, and  agrees  with  itself.  Every  truth  in  the  universe  agrees 
with  every  other  truth  in  the  universe;  whereas  falsehoods  not  only 
disagree  with  truths,  but  usually  quarrel  among  themselves.  Sure- 
ly Mr.  Colman  is  influenced  by  no  bias — no  prejudice;  he  has  no 
feelings  to  warp  him — except  now,  he  is  contradicted,  he  may  feel 
an  interest  to  be  believed. 

If  you  believe  Mr.  Colman,  then  the  evidence  is  fairly  in  the  case. 

I  shall  now  proceed  on  the  ground  that  you  do  believe  Mr.  Col- 
man. 

When  told  that  Joseph  had  determined  to  confess,  the  defendant 
said, — "  It  is  hard,  or  unfair,  that  Joseph  should  have  the  benefit  of 
confessing,  since  the  thing  was  done  for  his  benefit."  What  thing 
was  done  for  his  benefit  ?  Does  not  this  carry  an  implication  of  the 
guilt  of  the  defendant?  Does  it  not  show  that  he  had  a  knowledge 
of  the  object,  and  history  of  the  murder? 

The  defendant  said,  "  he  told  Joseph  when  he  proposed  it,  that  it 
was  a  silly  business,  and  would  get  us  into  trouble. "  He  knew, 
then,  what  this  business  was;  he  knew  that  Joseph  proposed  it,  and 
that  he  agreed  to  it,  else  he  could  not  get  us  into  trouble;  he  under- , 
stood  its  bearing,  and  its  consequences.  Thus  much  was  said  un- 
der circumstances,  that  make  it  clearly  evidence  against  him,  before 
there  is  any  pretence  of  an  inducement  held  out.  And  does  not  this 
prove  him  to  have  had  a  knowledge  of  the  conspiracy? 

He  knew  the  daggers  had  been  destroyed,  and  he  knew  who  com- 
mitted the  murder.  How  could  he  have  innocently  known  these 
facts?  Why,  if  by  Richard's  story,  this  shows  him  guilty  of  a 
knowledge  of  the  murder,  and  of  the  conspiracy.  More  than  all,  he 
knew  when  the  deed  was  done,  and  that  he  went  home  afterwards. 
This  shows  his  participation  in  that  deed.  "  Went  home  after- 
wards"— home,from  what  scene? — home,yrom  what  fact?  — home,yVoMi 
what  transaction? — home,  from  what  place?  This  confirms  the  sup- 
position that  the  prisoner  was  in  Brown  street  for  the  purposes  .^JL 
ascribed  to  him.  These  questions  were  directly  put,  and  directly 
answered.  He  does  not  intimate  that  he  received  the  ^information 
from  another.  Now,  if  he  knows  the  time,  and  went  home  after- 
wards, and  does  not  excuse  himself, — is  not  this  an  admission  that  he 
had  a  hand  in  this  murder?  Already  proved  to  be  a  conspirator  in 
the  murder,  he  now  confesses  that  he  knew  who  did  it — at  what  time 
it  was  done,  was  himself  out  of  his  own  house  at  the  time,  and  went 
home  afterwards.  Is  not  this  conclusive,  if  not  explained?  Then* 
comes  the  club.  He  told  where  it  was.  This  is  like  possession  of 
stolen  goods.  He  is  charged  with  the  guilty  knowledge  of  this  con- 
cealment. He  must  s/iow,  not  say,  how  he  came  by  this  knowledge. 
If  a  man  be  found  with  stolen  goods,  he  must  prove  how  he  came  by 
them.  The  place  of  deposit  of  the  club  was  premeditated  and  se- 
lected, and  he  knew  where  it  was. 

Joseph  Knapp  was  an  accessory,  and  accessory  only;  he  knew  on- 
ly what  was  told  him.     But  the  prisoner  knew  the  particular  spot  in 


488 

which  the  club  might  be  found.  This  shows  his  knowledge  something 
more,  than  that  of  an  accessory. 

This  presumption  must  be  rebutted  by  evidence,  or  it  stands  strong 
against  him.  He  has  too  much  knowledge  of  this  transaction,  to 
have  come  innocently  by  it.  It  must  stand  against  him  until  he  ex- 
plains it. 

This  testimony  of  Mr.  Colman  is  represented  as  new  matter,  and 
therefore  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  excite  a  prejudice  against  it. 
It  is  not  so.  How  little  is  there  in  it,  after  all,  that  did  not  appear 
from  other  sources?  It  is  mainly  confirmatory.  Compare  what  you 
learn  from  this  confession,  with  what  you  before  knew: — 

As  to  its  being  proposed  by  Joseph — was  not  that  true? 

As  to  Richard's  being  alone,  &c.  in  the  house — was  not  that  true? 

As  to  the  daggers — was  not  that  true? 

As  to  the  time  of  the  murder — was  not  that  true  ? 

As  to  his  being  out  that  night — was  not  that  true  ? 

As  to  his  returning  afterwards — was  not  that  true  ? 

As   to  the    club — was    not   that    true? 

So  this  information  confirms  what  was  known  before,  and  fully  con- 
firms it. 

/One  word,  as  to  the  interview  between  Mr.  Colman  and  Phippen 
fcnap.p  on  the  turnpike.  It  is  said  that  Mr.  Colman's  conduct  in  this 
matter,  is  inconsistent  with  his  testimony.  There  does  not  appear 
to  me  to  be  any  inconsistency.  He  tells  you  that  his  object  was  to 
save  Joseph,  and  to  hurt  no  one;  and  least  of  all  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar.  He  had,  probably,  told  Mr.  White,  the  substance  of  what  he 
heard  at  the  prison.  He  had  probably  told  him  that  Frank  confirmed 
what  Joseph  had  confessed.  He  was  unwilling  to  be  the  instrument 
of  harm  to  Frank.  He  therefore,  at  the  request  of  Phippen  Knapp, 
wrote  a  note  to  Mr.  White,  requesting  him  to  consider  Joseph  as  au- 
thority for  the  information  he  had  received.  He  tells  you  that  this 
is  the  only  thing  he  has  to  regret;  as  it  may  seem  to  be  an  evasion, — 
as  he  doubts  whether  it  was  entirely  correct.  If  it  was  an  evasion, 
if  it  was  a  deviation,  if  it  was  an  error,  it  was  an  error  of  mercy — an 
error  of  kindness;  an  error  that  proves  he  had  no  hostility  to  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  It  does  not  in  the  least  vary  his  testimony,  or 
affect  its  correctness.  Gentlemen,  I  look  on  the  evidence  of  Mr. 
Colman  as  highly  important;  not  as  bringing  into  the  cause  new- 
facts,  but  as  confirming,  in  a  very  satisfactory  manner,  other  evi- 
dence. It  is  incredible,  that  he  can  be  false,  and  that  he  is  seeking 
the  prisoner's  life,  through  false  swearing.  If  he  is  true,  it  is  in- 
credible that  the  prisoner  can  be  innocent. 

►  Gentlemen,  I  have  gone  through  with  the  evidence  in  this  case, 
and  have  endeavoured  to  state  it  plainly  and  fairly,  before  you.  I 
think  there  are  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  it,  which  you  cannot 
doubt.  I  think  you  cannot  doubt,  that  there  was  a  conspiracy 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  committing  this  murder,  and  who  the  con- 
spirators were. 

That  you  cannot  doubt,  that  the  Crowninshields  and  the  Knapps, 
were  the  parties  in  this  conspiracy. 

That  you  cannot  doubt,  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  knew  that  the 
murder  was  to  be  done  on  the  night  of  the  6th  of  April. 


489 

That  you  cannot  doubt,  that  the  murderers  of  Capt.  White  were 
the  suspicious  persons  seen  in  and  about  Brown  street  on  that 
night. 

That  you  cannot  doubt,  that  Richard  Crowninshield  was  the  per- 
petrator of  that  crime. 

That  you  cannot  doubt,  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  in  Brown 
street  on  that  night. 

If  there,  then  it  must  be  by  agreement — to  countenance,  to  aid 
the  perpetrator.     And  if  so,  then  he  is  guilty  as  Principal. 

♦  Gentlemen, — Your  whole  concern  should  be  to  do  your  duty,  and 
leave  consequences  to  take  care  of  themselves.  You  will  receive 
the  law  from  the  court.  Your  verdict,  it  is  true,  may  endanger  the 
prisoner's  life;  but  then,  it  is  to  save  other  lives.  If  the  prisoner's 
guilt  has  been  shown  and  proved,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  you 
will  convict  him.  If  such  reasonable  doubts  of  guilt  still  remain, 
you  will  acquit  him.  You  are  the  judges  of  the  whole  case.  You 
owe  a  duty  to  the  public,  as  well  as  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  You 
cannot  presume  to  be  wiser  than  the  law.  Your  duty  is  a  plain, 
straight  forward  one.  Doubtless,  we  would  all  judge  him  in  mercy. 
Towards  him,  as  an  individual,  the  law  inculcates  no  hostility; — but 
towards  him,  if  proved  to  be  a  murderer,  the  law,  and  the  oaths  you 
have  taken,  and  public  justice,  demand  that  you  do  your  duty. 

With  consciences  satisfied  with  the  discharge  of  duty,  no  conse- 
quences can  harm  you.  There  is  no  evil  that  we  cannot  either  face 
or  fly  from,  but  the  consciousness  of  duty  disregarded. 

A  sense  of  duty  pursues  us  ever.  It  is  omnipresent,  like  the 
Deity.  If  we  take  to  ourselves  the  wings  of  the  morning  and  dwell 
in  the  utmost  parts  of  the  seas,  duty  performed,  or  duty  violated,  is 
still  with  us,  for  our  happiness,  or  our  misery.  If  we  say  the  dark- 
ness shall  cover  us,  in  the  darkness  as  in  the  light,  our  obligations 
are  yet  with  us.  We  cannot  escape  their  power,  nor  fly  from  their 
presence.  They  are  with  us  in  this  life,  will  be  with  us  at  its  close; 
and  in  that  scene  of  inconceivable  solemnity,  which  lies  yet  farther 
onward — we  shall  still  find  ourselves  surrounded  by  the  conscious- 
ness of  duty,  to  pain  us,  wherever  it  has  been  violated,  and  to  con- 
sole us  so  far  as  God  may  have  given  us  grace  to  perform  it. 


62 


REMARKS 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON 
THE  BILL  TO  AMEND  THE  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM.    JAN.  4,  1826. 


[This  bill  proposed  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  should  thereafter 
consist  of  a  Chief  Justice  and  nine  Associate  Justices,  and  provided  for  the  appointment 
of  three  Additional  Associate  Justices  of  said  Court. 

That  the  seventh  Judicial  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  should  thereafter  consist  of 
the  Districts  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois ;  the  eighth  Circuit,  of  the   Districts  of  Ken 
tucky  and  Missouri;  the  ninth  Circuit,  of  the  Districts  of  Tennessee  and  Alabama;  and 
the  tenth  Circuit,  of  the  Districts  of  Louisiana  and  Mississippi. 

It  repealed  so  much  of  any  act  or  acts  of  Congress,  as  vested  in  the  District  Courts  of  the 
United  States  in  the  Districts  of  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and 
Louisiana,  the  powers  and  jurisdiction  of  Circuit  Courts,  and  provided  that  there  should  be 
thereafter  Circuit  Courts  for  said  Districts,  to  be  composed  of  the  Justice  of  die  Supreme 
Court,  assigned  or  allotted  to  the  Circuit  to  which  such  Districts  might  respectively  belong, 
and  of  the  District  Judge  of  such  Districts.] 

Mr.  Webster  said  that  the  bill,  which  was  under  consideration  of 
the  Committee,  was  so  simple  in  its  provisions,  and  so  unembarrass- 
ed with  detail,  that  little  or  nothing,  in  the  way  of  explanation, 
merely,  was  probably  expected  from  the  Committee.  But  the  gen- 
eral importance  of  the  subject,  and  the  material  change  which  the 
proposed  measure  embraces,  demanded  some  exposition  of  the  rea- 
sons which  had  led  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  to  submit  it  to 
the  consideration  of  the  House. 

The  occasion  naturally  presents  two  inquiries:  first,  whether  any 
evils  exist  in  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  Courts  of  the 
United  States;  and,  secondly,  whether,  if  there  be  such  evils,  the 
proposed  bill  is  a  proper  and  suitable  remedy.  On  both  these  points, 
it  is  my  duty  to  express  the  sentiments  which  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  entertain.  Perhaps,  however,  Mr.  Chairman,  before 
entering  into  a  discussion  of  those  two  questions,  I  may  be  allowed 
to  state  something  of  the  history  of  this  Department  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  to  advert  to  the  several  laws  which  have  been,  from  time 
to  time,  enacted,  respecting  its  organization. 

The  Judicial  power,  which,  by  the  Constitution,  was  to  be  exer- 
cised by  the  present  Government,  necessarily  engaged  the  attention 
of  the  first  Congress.  The  subject  fell  into  the  hands  of  very  able 
men,  and  it  may  well  excite  astonishment  that  the  system  which  they 
prepared  and  recommended,  and  which  was  adopted  in  the  hurried 
session  of  the  summer  of  1789,  has  been  found  to  fulfil,  so  far,  so 


491 

well,  and  for  so  long  a  time,  the  great  purposes  which  it  was  designed 
to  accomplish.  The  general  success  of  the  general  system,  so  far, 
may  well  inspire  some  degree  of  caution  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
are  called  on  to  alter  or  amend  it. 

By  the  original  act,  of  September,  1789,  there  was  to  be  a  Supreme 
Court,  according  to  the  Constitution,  which  was  to  consist  of  six 
Judges,  and  to  hold  two  sessions  a  year  at  the  seat  of  Government. 
The  United  States,  or  such  of  them  as  had  then  adopted  the  Constitu- 
tion, were  to  be  divided  into  Circuits  and  Districts,  and  there  was  to 
be  a  District  Court,  in  each  District,  holden  by  a  District  Judge.  The 
Districts  were  divided  into  three  Circuits,  the  Eastern,  the  Middle, 
and  the  Southern;  and  there  was  to  be  a  Circuit  Court  in  each 
District,  to  be  composed  of  two  of  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  the  District  Judge  for  the  District;  this  Circuit  Court 
was  to  hold  two  sessions  a  year,  in  each  District,  and  I  need  not 
inform  the  Committee,  that  the  great  mass  of  business,  excepting 
only  that  of  Admiralty  and  Maritime  jurisdiction,  belonged  to  the 
Circuit  Court  as  a  Court  of  original  jurisdiction.  It  entertained 
appeals,  or  writs  of  error,  also,  from  the  decisions  of  the  District 
Courts,  in  all  cases. 

By  this  arrangement,  then,  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court 
were  required  to  hold  two  sessions  of  that  Court,  annually,  at  the 
Seat  of  Government,  to  hear  appeals  and  writs  of  error;  and  it 
was  required  of  them  also,  that  two  of  them  should  attend  in  each 
District  twice  a  year,  to  hold,  with  the  District  Judge,  a  Circuit 
Court. 

It  was  found  that  these  duties  were  so  burdensome,  that  they 
could  not  be  performed.  In  November,  1792,  the  Judges  addressed 
the  President  on  the  subject,  (who  laid  their  communication  before 
Congress,)  setting  forth  their  inability  to  perform,  without  exertions 
and  sacrifices  too  great  to  be  expected  from  any  men,  the  services 
imposed  on  them  by  law.  It  was,  doubtless,  this  communication 
which  produced  the  law  of  March,  1793,  by  which  it  was  provided 
that  one  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  with  the  District  Judge, 
should  constitute  the  Circuit  Court.  And,  inasmuch  as  the  Courts 
would  now  consist  of  two  Judges,  provision  was  made,  perhaps 
sufficiently  awkward  and  inconvenient,  for  the  case  of  difference  of 
opinion.  It  will  be  observed,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  by  these  laws, 
thus  far,  particular  Justices  are  not  assigned  to  particular  Circuits. 
Any  two  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  under  the  first  law,  and  any 
one,  under  that  of  1793,  with  the  District  Judge,  constituted  a  Cir- 
cuit Court.  A  change,  or  alternation,  of  the  Judges,  was  contem- 
plated by  the  law.  Therefore,  it  was  provided,  by  the  act  of  1793, 
that,  in  case  of  division  of  opinion,  as  the  Court  consisted  of  but 
two  Judges,  the  question  should  be  continued  to  the  next  session, 
and,  if  a  different  Judge  then  appeared,  and  his  opinion  coincided 
with  that  of  his  predecessor,  judgment  should  go  accordingly. 

And  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  observe,  that,  in  my  opinion, 
the  original  plan  of  holding  the  Circuit  Courts  by  different  Judges, 
from  time  to  time,  was  ill-judged;  it  was  founded  on  a  false  analogy: 
it  seems  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  English  Courts  of  Assize 
and  jYisi  Prius;  but  the  difference  in  the  powers  and  jurisdiction  of 


492 

the  Judges  in  the  two  cases,  rendered  what  was  proper  for  one,  not 
a  fit  model  for  the  other.  The  English  Judges  at  Nisi  Prius,  so  far 
as  civil  causes  are  concerned,  have  nothing  to  do  but  try  questions 
of  fact  by  the  aid  of  a  jury,  on  issues  or  pleadings  already  settled 
in  the  Court  from  which  the  record  proceeds.  They  give  no  final 
judgments;  nor  do  they  make  interlocutory  orders  respecting  the 
proceeding  and  progress  of  the  cause.  They  take  a  verdict  of  the 
jury  on  the  issues  already  joined  between  the  parties,  and  give  no 
other  directions  in  matters  of  law,  than  such  as  become  necessary 
in  the  course  of  this  trial  by  jury.  Every  case  begun,  therefore,  is 
ordinarily  finished.  Nothing  of  that  case  remains  for  the  Judges' 
successor.  If  it  be  tried,  the  record  is  taken  back  with  the  verdict 
to  Westminster  Hall;  if  it  be  not  tried,  the  whole  case  remains  for 
a  subsequent  occasion.  It  is,  perhaps,  surprising,  that  the  very 
able  men  who  framed  the  first  judicial  act,  did  not  see  the  great  dif- 
ference between  this  manner  of  proceeding  at  the  English  Assizes, 
and  the  necessary  course  of  proceeding  in  our  Circuit  Courts,  with 
the  powers  and  jurisdictions  conferred  on  those  Courts.  These  are 
Courts  of  final  jurisdiction;  they  not  only  take  verdicts,  but  give 
judgments.  Here  suits  are  brought,  proceeded  with,  through  all 
their  stages,  tried,  and  finally  determined.  And,  as  in  the  progress 
of  suits,  especially  those  of  equity  jurisdiction,  it  necessarily  hap- 
pens that  there  are  different  stages,  and  successive  orders  become 
necessary,  from  term  to  term,  it  happened,  of  course,  that  the  Judge 
was  often  changed  before  the  cause  was  decided:  he  who  heard  the 
end,  had  not  heard  the  beginning.  And,  when  to  this  is  added,  that 
these  Judges  were  bred  in  different  schools,  and,  as  to  matters  of 
practice,  especially,  accustomed  to  different  usages,  it  will  be  easy 
to  perceive  that  no  small  difficulties  were  to  be  encountered  in  the 
ordinary  despatch  of  business.  So,  in  cases  reserved  for  advise- 
ment and  further  consideration,  the  Judge  reserving  the  question, 
was  not  the  Judge  to  decide  it.  He  who  heard  the  argument,  was 
not  to  make  the  decision.  Without  pursuing  this  part  of  the  case 
farther,  it  is  quite  obvious  that  such  a  system  could  not  answer  the 
ends  of  justice. 

The  Courts,  indeed,  were  called  Circuit  Courts;  which  seemed 
to  imply  an  itinerant  character;  but,  in  truth,  they  resembled  much 
more,  in  their  power  and  jurisdiction,  the  English  Courts  sitting  in 
bench,  than  the  Assizes,  to  which  they  appear  to  have  been  likened. 

The  act  of  1793,  by  requiring  the  attendance  of  only  one,  in- 
stead of  two,  of  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  on  the  Circuits, 
of  course  diminished,  by  one  half,  the  Circuit  labors  of  those 
Judges. 

We  then  come  to  the  law  of  February,  1801.  By  this  act,  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  were  relieved  from  all  Circuit  duties. 
Provision  was  made  that  their  number  should  be  reduced,  on  the 
first  vacancy,  from  six  to  five.  They  were  still  to  hold  two  sessions 
annually,  of  the  Supreme  Court:  and  Circuit  Judges  were  appoint- 
ed to  hold  the  Circuit  Court  in  each  District.  The  provisions  of 
this  law  are  generally  known,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  recite  them 
particularly.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that,  in  five  of  the  six  Circuits, 
the  Circuit  Court  was  to  consist  of  three  Judges,  specially  appoint- 


493 

ed  to  constitute  such  Court;    and,  in  the  sixth,  of  one  Judge,  spe- 
cially appointed,  and  the  District  Judge  of  the  District. 

We  all  know,  sir,  that  this  law  lasted  but  a  twelvemonth.  It  was 
repealed  in  toto  by  the  act  of  March  8,  1802;  and  a  new  organiza- 
tion of  the  Circuit  Courts  was  provided  for  by  the  act  of  the  29th 
of  April,  of  that  year.  It  must  be  admitted,  I  think,  sir,  that  this 
act  made  considerable  improvements  upon  the  system,  as  it  existed 
before  the  act  of  February,  1801.  It  took  away  the  itinerary  char- 
acter of  the  Circuit  Courts,  by  assigning  particular  Justices  to 
particular  Courts.  This,  in  my  opinion,  was  a  great  improvement. 
It  conformed  the  constitution  of  the  Court  to  the  nature  of  the  pow- 
ers which  it  exercised.  The  same  Judges  now  heard  the  cause 
through  all  the  stages  of  its  progress,  and  the  Court  became,  what 
its  duties  properly  made  it,  a  Court  of  Record,  with  permanent 
Judges,  exercising  a  various  jurisdiction,  trying  causes  at  its  bar 
by  Jury,  in  cases  proper  for  the  intervention  of  a  jury,  and  render- 
ing final  judgments.  This  act,  also,  provided  another  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding with  cases  in  which  the  two  Judges  composing  the  Circuit 
Court  should  differ  in  opinion.  It  prescribed,  that  such  difference 
should  be  stated,  certified  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  that  that 
Court  should  decide  the  question,  and  certify  its  decision  to  the 
Circuit  Court. 

In  this  state  of  things,  the  Judicial  System  remained,  without 
material  change,  until  the  year  1807,  when  a  law  was  passed  for 
the  appointment  of  an  additional  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
a  Circuit  allotted  to  him  in  the  Western  States. 

It  may  be  here  observed,  that,  from  the  commencement,  the  sys- 
tem has  not  been  uniform.  From  the  first,  there  was  an  anomaly 
in  it.  By  the  original  act  of  September,  1789,  a  District  Court 
was  established  for  Kentucky,  (then  part  of  Virginia,)  and  for 
Maine,  (then  part  of  Massachusetts,)  and,  in  addition  to  the  powers 
of  District  Courts,  there  was  conferred  on  these,  all  the  jurisdiction 
which  elsewhere  belongs  to  Circuit  Courts,  and,  in  other  cases,  as 
new  States  were  added  to  the  Union,  District  Courts  were  estab- 
lished, with  the  powers  of  Circuit  Courts.  The  same  thing  has 
happened,  too,  when  States  have  been  divided  into  two  Districts 
There  are,  at  present,  several  States  which  have  no  Circuit  Court 
except  the  District  Court,  and  there  are  other  States  which  are  di- 
vided into  more  than  one  District,  and  in  some  of  which  Districts 
there  is  but  a  District  Court  with  Circuit  Court  jurisdiction;  so  that 
it  cannot  be  said,  that  the  system  has  been  at  any  time  entirely 
uniform. 

So  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  history  of  our  legislation  on  the 
Judicial  Department. 

I  am  not  aware,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there  is  any  public  complaint 
of  the  operation  of  the  present  system,  so  far  as  it  applies  to  the 
Atlantic  States.  So  far  as  I  know,  justice  has  been  administered 
efficiently,  promptly,  and  satisfactorily,  in  all  those  Circuits.  The 
Judges,  perhaps,  have  a  good  deal  of  employment:  but  they  have 
been  able  to  go  through  their  arduous  duties  in  such  manner  as  to 
leave  no  cause  of  complaint,  as  far  as  I  am  informed.  For  my  own 
part,  I  am  not  sanguine  enough  to  expect,  as  far  as  those  Circuit* 

ss 


494 

are  concerned,  that  any  improvement  can  be  made.  In  my  opinion, 
none  is  needed.  But  it  is  not  so  in  the  Western  States.  Here 
exists  a  great  deficiency.  The  country  has  outgrown  the  system. 
This  is  no  man's  fault  nor  does  it  impute  want  of  usual  foresight  to 
any  one.  It  would  have  seemed  chimerical  in  the  framers  of  the 
law  of  1789,  if  they  had  struck  out  a  plan  which  should  have  been 
adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  country,  as  it  actually  exists  in 
1826.  From  a  period  as  far  back  as  the  close  of  the  late  war,  the 
people  of  the  West  have  applied  to  Congress  on  the  subject  of  the 
Courts.  No  session  of  Congress  has  passed  without  an  attempt,  in 
one  or  the  other  House,  to  produce  some  change:  and  although 
various  projects  have  been  presented,  the  inherent  difficulties  of  the 
subject  have  prevented  any  efficient  action  of  the  Legislature.  I 
will  state,  shortly,  sir,  and  as  nearly  as  I  remember,  what  has  been 
at  different  times  proposed. 

In  the  first  place,  it  has  been  proposed  to  recur  to  the  system  of 
Circuit  Courts,  upon  the  principle,  although  not  exactly  after  the 
model,  of  the  act  of  February,  1801 .  A  bill  of  this  character  passed 
the  Senate  in  1819,  dividing  the  country  into  nine  Circuits,  and 
providing  for  the  appointment  of  one  Circuit  Judge  to  each  Circuit, 
who,  with  the  District  Judge  of  the  District,  should  constitute  the 
Circuit  Court.  It  also  provided,  that  the  Supreme  Court,  as  vacan- 
cies should  occur,  should  be  reduced  to  five  members.  This  bill,  I 
believe,  was  not  acted  upon  in  this  House.  Again  it  has  been  pro- 
posed, to  constitute  Circuit  Courts  by  the  union  of  the  District 
Judges  in  the  Circuit.  It  has  been  proposed,  also,  to  extend  the 
existing  system  somewhat  in  conformity  to  the  object  of  the  present 
bill,  by  adding  to  the  number  of  the  Judges  in  the  Supreme  Court. 
And  a  different  arrangement  still  has  been  presented,  which  con- 
templates the  appointment  of  Circuit  Judges  for  some  Districts,  and 
the  continued  performance  of  Circuit  duties  by  the  Supreme  Judges 
in  others,  with  such  legal  provision  as  shall  not  attach  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  performance  of  their  Circuit  duties, 
unequally,  to  any  part  of  the  country,  but  allow  them  to  be  distribu- 
ted equally  and  fairly,  over  the  whole.  This  system,  though  some- 
what complex,  and  perhaps  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  is,  I  confess, 
what  appears  to  me  best  of  all  suited  to  our  condition.  It  would 
not  make  the  Supreme  Court  too  numerous;  and  it  would  still 
require  from  its  members  the  performance  of  Circuit  duties;  it 
would  allow  a  proper  distribution  of  these  members  to  every  part  of 
the  country;  and,  finally,  it  would  furnish  an  adequate  provision  for 
the  despatch  of  business  in  the  Circuit  Courts.  Upon  this  plan,  a 
bill  was  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  first  ses- 
sion of  the  last  Congress,  but  it  did  not  meet  with  general  favor; 
and  the  fate  of  a  similar  proposition  elsewhere,  at  a  subsequent 
period,  discourages  any  revival  of  it. 

I  now  come,  sir,  to  consider  whether  any,  and  what,  evils  exist; 
and  then,  whether  this  bill  be  a  suitable  remedy.  And  in  the  first 
place,  it  is  said,  perhaps  with  some  justice,  that  the  business  of  the 
Supreme  Court  itself,  is  not  gone  through  with  sufficient  promptitude: 
that  it  is  accumulating:  that  great  delays  are  experienced,  and 
greater  delays  feared.     As  to  this,  I  would  observe,  that  the  annual 


495 

session  of  the  Court  cannot  last  above  six  or  seven  weeks,  because 
it  commences  in  February,  and  the  Circuit  duties  of  the  Judges 
require  them  to  leave  this  place  the  latter  part  of  March.  But  I 
know  no  reason  why  the  Judges  should  not  assemble  earlier.  I 
believe  it  would  not  materially  interfere  with  their  Circuit  duties,  to 
commence  the  session  here  in  the  early  part  of  January;  and  if  that 
were  the  case,  I  have  little  doubt  that,  in  two  years,  they  would  clear 
the  docket.  A  bill  to  make  this  change,  passed  this  House  two 
years  ago;  I  regret  to  say,  it  was  not  acted  upon  in  the  Senate. 

As  to  returning  to  the  original  practice  of  having  two  sessions  of 
the  Supreme  Court  within  the  year,  I  incline  to  think  it  wholly  inex- 
pedient. The  inconvenience  arising  from  the  distance  of  suitors 
and  counsel  from  the  seat  of  government,  forms  a  decisive  objection 
to  that  proposition. 

The  great  evil,  however,  sir,  at  present  experienced,  that  which 
calls  most  loudly  and  imperatively  for  a  remedy,  is,  the  state  of 
business  in  the  Circuit  Courts  in  the  Western  States.  The  seventh 
Circuit  consists  of  Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Tennessee.  All  the  other 
Western  States  have  District  Courts,  with  the  powers  of  Circuit 
Courts.  I  am  fully  of  opinion,  that  some  further  provision  is  requir- 
ed of  us,  for  the  administration  of  justice  in  these  States.  The  exist- 
ing means  are  not  equal  to  the  end.  The  judicial  organization  is  not 
competent  to  exercise  the  jurisdiction  which  the  laws  confer  upon  it. 
There  is  a  want  of  men,  and  a  want  of  time.  In  this  respect,  it 
appears  to  me,  that  our  constitutional  duty  is  very  plain.  The  Con- 
stitution confers  certain  judicial  powers  on  the  Government  of  the 
United  States:  we  undertake  to  provide  for  the  exercise  of  these 
powers;  but  the  provision  is  inadequate,  and  the  powers  are  not 
exercised.  By  the  Constitution,  the  judicial  power  of  this  Govern- 
ment extends,  as  well  as  to  other  things,  to  causes  between  citizens 
of  different  States.  We  open  Courts  professedly  to  exercise  that 
jurisdiction:  but  they  are  not  competent  to  it;  it  is  not  exercised 
with  reasonable  promptitude;  the  suitor  is  delayed,  and  the  end  of 
the  constitutional  provision,  in  some  measure,  defeated.  Now,  it 
appears  to  me  very  plain,  that  we  should  either  refuse  to  confer  this 
jurisdiction  on  the  Courts,  or  that  we  should  so  constitute  them,  that 
it  may  be  efficiently  exercised. 

I  hold,  sir,  the  certificate  of  the  Clerk  for  the  District  and  Circuit 
Court  of  the  District  of  Kentucky,  that  there  are  now  pending,  in 
those  Courts,  950  causes.  As  this  is  not  a  maritime  district,  most 
of  these  causes,  doubtless,  are  in  the  Circuit  Court;  nor  has  this 
accumulation  arisen  from  any  want  of  diligence  in  the  Judges  them- 
selves: for,  the  same  paper  states,  that  2,000  causes  have  been  dis- 
posed of  within  the  last  three  years.  The  Memorial  of  the  Bar  of 
Nashville  informs  us  that  160  cases  are  pending  in  the  Circuit  Court 
for  the  Western  District  of  Tennessee;  a  number,  perhaps  not 
much  less,  is  on  the  docket  of  the  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Tennessee;  and,  I  am  authorised  to  state,  that  200,  or  250,  may  be 
taken  as  the  number  of  suits  pending  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Ohio. 
These  three  States,  sir,  constitute  one  Circuit:  they  extend  over  a 
wide  region;  the  places  for  holding  the  Courts  are  at  vast  distances 
from  one   another;  and  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  man,  that   the 


496 

Judge  assigned  to  this  Circuit  should  get  through  the  duties  of  his 
station.  With  the  state  of  business  in  the  other  western  and  south- 
western States,  I  am  not  so  particularly  acquainted.  Gentlemen 
from  those  States  will  expose  it  to  the  Committee.  I  know  enough, 
however,  to  be  satisfied  that  the  whole  case  calls  for  attention.  It 
grows  no  better  by  delay,  and,  whatever  difficulties  embarrass  it, 
we  may  as  well  meet  them  at  once,  and  agree  upon  such  remedy  as 
shall,  upon  the  whole,  seem  most  expedient. 

And  this,  sir,  brings  me  to  the  most  difficult  part  of  our  inquiry; 
that  is  to  say,  whether  such  a  measure  as  this  bill  proposes,  be  the 
proper  remedy.  I  beg  to  say,  sir,  that  I  feel  this  difficulty  as  deeply 
as  it  can  be  felt  by  any  member  of  the  Committee;  and  while  I  ex- 
press my  own  opinions,  such  as  they  are,  I  shall  be  most  happy  to 
derive  light  from  the  greater  experience,  or  the  better  intelligence, 
of  any  gentleman.  To  me  it  appears,  that  we  are  brought  to  the 
alternative  of  deciding  between  something  like  what  this  bill  pro- 
poses, and  the  Circuit  Court  system,  as  provided  in  the  bill  of  the 
Senate,  in  1819.  As  a  practical  question,  I  think  it  has  come  to 
this  point:  Shall  we  extend  the  present  system,  by  increasing  the 
number  of  the  Judges?  or,  shall  we  recur  to  the  system  of  Circuit 
Courts?  I  invoke  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  this  question; 
because,  thinking  the  one  or  the  other  inevitable,  I  wish  for  the 
mature  judgment  of  the  House  on  both. 

In  favor  of  the  Circuit  Court  system,  it  may  be  said,  that  it  is 
uniform,  and  may  be  made  to  apply  to  all  the  States  equally:  so  that 
if  new  States  come  into  the  Union,  Circuit  Courts  may  be  provided 
for  them  without  derangement  to  the  general  organization.  This, 
doubtless,  is  a  consideration  entitled  to  much  weight.  It  is  said, 
also,  that,  by  separating  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  the 
Circuits,  we  shall  leave  them  ample  time  for  the  discharge  of  the 
high  duties  of  their  appellate  jurisdiction.  This,  no  doubt,  is  true: 
but  then,  whether  it  be  desirable,  upon  the  whole,  to  withdraw  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  the  Circuits,  and  to  confine 
their  labors  entirely  to  the  sessions  at  Washington,  is  a  question 
which  has  most  deeply  occupied  my  reflections,  and  in  regard  to 
which  I  am  free  to  confess,  some  change  has  been  wrought  in  my 
opinions.  With  entire  respect  for  the  better  judgment  of  others, 
and  doubting,  therefore,  when  I  find  myself  differing  from  those 
who  are  wiser  and  more  experienced,  I  am  still  constrained  to  say, 
that  my  judgment  is  against  withdrawing  the  Judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  from  the  Circuits,  if  it  can  be  avoided.  The  reasons 
which  influence  this  sentiment  are  general,  and  perhaps  may  be 
thought  too  indefinite  and  uncertain  to  guide  in  measures  of  public 
importance;  they  nevertheless  appear  to  me  to  have  weight,  and  I 
will  state  them  with  frankness,  in  the  hope  that,  if  they  are  without 
reasonable  foundation,  I  shall  be  shown  it,  when  certainly  I  shall 
cheerfully  relinquish  them. 

In  the  first  place,  it  appears  to  me  that  such  an  intercourse  as  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  enabled  to  have  with  the  profes- 
sion, and  with  the  people,  in  their  respective  Circuits,  is  itself  an 
object  of  no  inconsiderable  importance.  It  naturally  inspires  re- 
spect and  confidence,  and  it  communicates  and  reciprocates  infor- 


497 

mation  through  all  the  branches  of  the  Judicial  Department.  This 
leads  to  a  harmony  of  opinion  and  of  action.  The  Supreme  Court 
is,  itself,  in  some  measure,  insulated;  it  has  not  frequent  occasions 
of  contact  with  the  community.  The  Bar  that  attends  it  is  neither 
numerous,  nor  regular  in  its  attendance.  The  gentlemen  who  ap- 
pear before  it,  in  the  character  of  counsel,  come  for  the  occasion, 
and  depart  with  the  occasion.  The  profession  is  occupied  mainly 
in  the  objects  which  engage  it  in  its  own  domestic  forums;  it  be- 
longs to  the  States;  and  their  tribunals  furnish  its  constant  and  prin- 
cipal theatre.  If  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  therefore,  are 
wholly  withdrawn  from  the  Circuits,  it  appears  to  me  there  is  dan- 
ger of  leaving  them  without  the  means  of  useful  intercourse  with 
other  judicial  characters,  with  the  profession  of  which  they  are 
members,  and  with  the  public.  But,  without  pursuing  these  gene- 
ral reflections,  I  would  say,  in  the  second  place,  that  I  think  it 
useful  that  Judges  should  see  in  practice  the  operation  and  effect 
of  their  own  decisions.  This  will  prevent  theory  from  running  too 
far,  or  refining  too  much.  We  find,  in  legislation,  that  general 
provisions  of  law,  however  cautiously  expressed,  often  require  limi- 
tation and  modification;  something  of  the  same  sort  takes  place  in 
judicature:  however  beautiful  may  be  the  theory  of  general  princi- 
ples, such  is  the  infinite  variety  of  human  affairs,  that  those  most 
practised  in  them,  and  conversant  with  them,  see  at  every  turn  a 
necessity  of  imposing  restraints  and  qualifications  on  such  princi- 
ples. The  daily  application  of  their  own  doctrines  will  necessarily 
inspire  Courts  with  caution;  and,  by  a  knowledge  of  what  takes 
place  upon  the  Circuits,  and  occurs  in  constant  practice,  they  will 
be  able  to  decide  finally,  without  the  imputation  of  having  overlook- 
ed, or  not  understood,  any  of  the  important  elements  and  ingre- 
dients of  a  just  decision. 

But  further,  sir,  I  must  take  the  liberty  of  saying,  that,  in  regard 
to  the  judicial  office,  constancy  of  employment  is,  of  itself,  in  my 
judgment,  a  good,  and  a  great  good.  I  appeal  to  the  conviction  of 
the  whole  profession,  if,  as  a  general  observation,  they  do  not  find 
that  those  who  decide  most  causes,  decide  them  best.  Exercise 
strengthens  and  sharpens  the  faculties,  in  this,  more  than  in  almost 
any  other  employment.  I  would  have  the  judicial  office  filled  by 
him  who  is  wholly  a  judge,  always  a  judge,  and  nothing  but  a  judge. 
With  proper  seasons,  of  course,  for  recreation  and  repose,  his  se- 
rious thoughts  should  all  be  turned  to  his  official  duties — he  should 
be  omnis  in  hoc.  I  think,  sir,  there  is  hardly  a  greater  mistake  than 
has  prevailed  occasionally  in  some  of  the  States,  of  creating  many 
Judges,  assigning  them  duties  which  occupy  but  a  small  part  of 
their  time,  and  then  making  this  the  ground  for  allowing  them  a 
small  compensation.  The  judicial  office  is  incompatible  with  any 
other  pursuit  in  life:  and  all  the  faculties  of  every  man  who  takes  it, 
ought  to  be  constantly  exercised,  and  exercised  to  one  end.  Now, 
sir,  it  is  natural,  that,  in  reasoning  on  this  subject,  I  should  take 
my  facts  from  what  passes  within  my  own  means  of  observation:  if 
I  am  mistaken  in  my  premises,  the  conclusion,  of  course,  ought  to 
be  rejected.  But  I  suppose  it  will  be  safe  to  say,  that  a  session  of 
eight  weeks  in  the  year,  will  probably  be  sufficient  for  the  decision 

63  ss* 


498 

of  causes  in  the  Supreme  Court:  and,  reasoning  from  what  exists 
in  one  of  the  most  considerable  Circuits  in  the  Atlantic  States,  I 
suppose  that  eight,  ten,  or  at  most,  twelve  weeks,  may  be  the  aver- 
age of  the  time  requisite  to  be  spent  by  a  Circuit  Judge  in  his  Cir- 
cuit Court  in  those  Circuits.  If  this  be  so,  then,  if  the  Courts  be 
separated,  we  have  Supreme  Judges  occupied  two  months  out  of 
twelve,  and  Circuit  Judges  occupied  three  months  out  of  twelve. 
In  my  opinion,  this  is  not  a  system  either  to  make,  or  to  keep  good 
Judges.  The  Supreme  Court  exercises  a  great  variety  of  juris- 
dictions; it  reverses  decisions  at  common  law,  in  equity,  and  in  ad- 
miralty; and  with  the  theory  and  the  practice  of  all  these  systems, 
it  is  indispensable  that  the  Judges  should  be  accurately  and  inti- 
mately acquainted.  It  is  for  the  Committee  to  judge  how  far  the 
withdrawing  them  from  the  Circuits,  and  confining  them  to  the 
exercise  of  an  appellate  jurisdiction,  may  increase  or  diminish  this 
information.  But,  again,  sir,  we  have  a  great  variety  of  local  laws 
existing  in  this  country,  which  are  the  standard  of  decision  where 
they  prevail.  The  laws  of  New  England,  Maryland,  Louisiana, 
and  Kentucky,  are  almost  so  many  different  codes.  These  laws 
are  to  be  construed  and  administered,  in  many  cases,  in  the  Courts 
of  the  United  States.  Now,  is  there  any  doubt,  that  a  Judge, 
coming  on  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court,  with  a  familiar  ac- 
quaintance with  these  laws,  derived  from  daily  practice  and  decis- 
ions, must  be  more  able,  both  to  form  his  own  judgment  correctly, 
and  to  assist  that  of  his  brethren,  than  a  stranger  who  only  looks  at 
the  theory?  This  is  a  point  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Of  the  weight 
of  the  suggestion  the  Committee  will  judge.  It  appears  to  me,  I 
confess,  that  a  Court  remotely  situated,  a  stranger  to  these  local 
laws  in  their  application  and  practice,  with  whatever  diligence,  or 
with  whatever  ability,  must  be  liable  to  fall  into  great  mistakes. 

May  I  ask  your  indulgence,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  suggest  one  other 
idea:  With  no  disposition,  whatever,  to  entertain  doubts  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  Executive  duty  of  appointments  shall  at  any 
time  hereafter  be  performed,  the  Supreme  Court  is  so  important, 
that,  in  whatever  relates  to  it,  I  am  willing  to  make  assurance 
doubly  sure,  and  to  adopt,  therefore,  whatever  fairly  comes  in  my 
way,  likely  to  increase  the  probability  that  able  and  efficient  men 
will  be  placed  upon  that  bench.  Now,  I  confess,  that  I  know  noth- 
ing which  I  think  more  conducive  to  that  end,  than  the  assigning  to 
the  members  of  that  Court,  important,  responsible,  individual  du- 
ties. Whatsoever  makes  the  individual  prominent,  conspicuous, 
and  responsible,  increases  the  probability  that  he  will  be  some  one 
possessing  the  proper  requisites  to  be  a  Judge.  It  is  one  thing  to 
give  a  vote  upon  a  bench,  (especially  if  it  be  a  numerous  bench,) 
for  plaintiff  or  defendant,  and  quite  another  thing  to  act  as  the  head 
of  a  Court,  of  various  jurisdiction,  civil  and  criminal — to  conduct 
trials  by  Jury,  and  render  judgments  in  law,  equity,  and  admiralty. 
While  these  duties  belong  to  the  condition  of  a  Judge  on  the  bench, 
that  place  will  not  be  a  sinecure,  nor  likely  to  be  conferred  without 
proofs  of  proper  qualifications.  For  these  reasons  I  am  inclined  to 
wish  that  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  not  be  separated 
from  the  Circuits,  if  any  other  suitable  provision  can  be  made. 


499 

As  to  the  present  bill,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  will  doubtless  be  objected 
that  it  makes  the  Supreme  Court  too  numerous.  In  regard  to  that, 
I  am  bound  to  say,  that  my  own  opinion  was,  that  the  present  exi- 
gency of  the  country  could  have  been  answered  by  the  addition  of 
two  members  to  the  Court.  I  believe  the  three  northwestern  States 
might  well  enough  go  on  for  some  time  longer;  and  form  a  Circuit 
of  themselves,  perhaps,  hereafter,  as  the  population  shall  increase, 
and  the  state  of  their  affairs  require  it.  The  addition  of  the  third 
Judge  is  what  I  assent  to,  rather  than  what  I  recommend.  It  is 
what  I  would  gladly  avoid,  if  I  could  with  propriety.  But,  on  the 
subject  of  the  number  of  Judges,  I  admit  that,  for  some  causes,  it 
will  be  inconveniently  large:  for  such,  especially,  as  require  inves- 
tigation into  matters  of  fact,  such  as  those  of  Equity  and  Admiralty; 
and,  perhaps,  for  all  private  causes,  generally.  But  the  great  and 
leading  character  of  the  Supreme  Court,  its  most  important  duties, 
and  its  highest  functions,  have  not  yet  been  alluded  to.  It  is  its 
peculiar  relation  to  this  Government,  and  the  State  Governments: 
It  is  the  power  which  it  rightfully  holds  and  exercises,  of  revising  the 
opinions  of  other  tribunals  on  Constitutional  questions,  as  the  great 
practical  expounder  of  the  powers  of  the  Government;  which  attaches 
to  this  tribunal  the  greatest  attention,  and  makes  it  worthy  of  the  most 
deliberate  consideration.  Duties  at  once  so  important  and  so  deli- 
cate, impose  no  common  responsibility,  and  require  no  common 
talent  and  weight  of  character.  A  very  small  Court  seems  unfit  for 
these  high  functions.  These  duties,  though  essentially  judicial, 
partake  something  of  a  political  character.  The  Judges  are  called 
on  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  acts  of  independent  States:  they  con- 
trol the  will  of  sovereigns:  they  are  liable  to  be  exposed,  therefore, 
to  the  resentment  of  wounded  sovereign  pride;  and  from  the  very 
nature  of  our  system,  they  are  called  on,  also,  sometimes,  to  decide 
whether  Congress  has  not  exceeded  its  constitutional  limits.  Sir, 
there  exists  not  upon  the  earth,  and  there  never  did  exist,  a  judicial 
tribunal  clothed  with  powers  so  various,  and  so  important.  I  doubt 
the  safety  of  rendering  it  small  in  number  My  own  opinion  is, 
that,  if  we  were  to  establish  Circuit  Courts,  and  to  confine  their 
Judges  to  their  duties  on  the  bench,  their  number  should  not  at  all 
be  reduced:  and  if,  by  some  moderate  addition  to  it,  other  impor- 
tant objects  may  well  be  answered,  I  am  prepared  to  vote  for  such 
addition.  In  a  government  like  ours,  entirely  popular,  care  should 
be  taken  in  every  part  of  the  system,  not  only  to  do  right,  but  to 
satisfy  the  community  that  right  is  done.  The  opinions  of  mankind 
naturally  attach  more  respect  and  confidence  to  the  decisions  of  a 
Court  somewhat  numerous,  than  to  those  of  one  composed  of  a 
less  number.  And,  for  myself,  I  acknowledge  my  fear,  that,  if  the 
number  of  the  Court  were  reduced,  and  its  members  wholly  with- 
drawn from  the  Circuits,  it  might  become  an  object  of  unpleasant 
jealousy,  and  great  distrust. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  suppose  I  need  not  assure  the  Committee  that,  if 
I  saw  any  thing  in  this  bill  which  would  lessen  the  respectability,  or 
shake  the  independence  of  the  Supreme  Court,  T  am  the  last  man 
to  be  in  favor  of  it.  I  look  upon  the  Judicial  Department  of  this 
government,  as  its  main  support.     I  am  persuaded  that  it  could  not 


500 

exist  without  it.  I  shall  oppose  whatever  I  think  calculated  to  dis- 
turb the  fabric  of  government;  to  unsettle  what  is  settled;  or  to 
shake  the  faith  of  honest  men  in  the  stability  of  the  laws,  or  the 
purity  of  their  administration.  If  any  gentleman  shall  show  me 
that  any  of  these  consequences  is  like  to  follow  the  adoption  of  this 
measure,  I  shall  hasten  to  withdraw  from  it  my  support.  But  I  think 
we  are  bound  to  do  something:  and  shall  be  most  happy  if  the 
wisdom  of  the  House  shall  suggest  a  course  more  free  of  difficul- 
ties than  that  which  is  now  proposed  to  it. 


FURTHER  REMARKS  ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT,  IN  REPLY  TO  THE 
ARGUMENTS  USED  AGAINST  THE  BILL,  AND  IN  FAVOR  OF  ITS 
POSTPONEMENT.    JAN.  25,  1826. 

I  had  not  intended,  sir,  to  avail  myself  of  the  indulgence  which 
is  generally  allowed,  under  circumstances  like  the  present,  of  making 
a  reply.  But  the  House  has  been  invited,  with  such  earnestness,  to 
postpone  this  measure  to  another  year;  it  has  been  pressed,  with  so 
much  apparent  alarm,  to  give  no  further  countenance  or  support  now 
to  the  bill,  that  I  reluctantly  depart  from  my  purpose,  and  ask  leave  to 
offer  a  few  brief  remarks  upon  the  leading  topics  of  the  discussion. 

This,  sir,  must  be  allowed,  and  is,  on  all  hands  allowed,  to  be  a 
measure  of  great  and  general  interest.  It  respects  that  important 
branch  of  Government,  the  Judiciary;  and  something  of  a  Judicial 
tone  of  discussion  is  not  unsuitable  to  the  occasion.  We  cannot 
treat  the  question  too  calmly,  or  too  dispassionately.  For  myself, 
I  feel  that  I  have  no  pride  of  opinion  to  gratify,  no  eagerness  of  de- 
bate to  be  indulged,  no  competition  to  be  pursued.  I  hope  I  may 
say,  without  impropriety,  that  I  am  not  insensible  to  the  responsi- 
bility of  my  own  situation  as  a  member  of  the  House,  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Committee.  I  am  aware  of  no  prejudice  which  should 
draw  my  mind  from  the  single  and  solicitous  contemplation  of  what 
may  be  best;  and  I  have  listened  attentively,  through  the  whole 
course  of  this  debate,  not  with  the  feelings  of  one  who  is  meditating 
the  means  of  replying  to  objections,  or  escaping  from  their  force, 
but  with  an  unaffected  anxiety  to  give  every  argument  its  just 
weight,  and  with  a  perfect  readiness  to  abandon  this  measure,  at 
any  moment,  in  favor  of  any  other,  which  should  appear  to  have 
solid  grounds  of  preference.  But  I  cannot  say  that  my  opinion  is 
altered.  The  measure  appears  to  my  mind  in  the  same  light  as 
when  it  was  first  presented  to  the  House.  I  then  saw  some  incon- 
veniences attending  it,  and  admitted  them:  I  see  them  now;  but 
while  the  effect  of  this  discussion,  in  my  own  mind,  has  not  been  to 
do  away  entirely  the  sense  of  these  inconveniences,  it  has  not  been, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  remove  the  greater  objections  which  exists  to 
any  other  plan.  I  remain  fully  convinced,  that  this  course,  is,  on 
the  whole,  that  which  is  freest  of  difficulties.  However  plausible 
other  systems  iu;r         in  in  their  general  outline,  objections  arise, 


501 

and  thicken  as  we  go  into  their  details.  It  is  not  now  at  all  certain 
that  those  who  are  opposed  to  this  bill,  are  agreed,  as  to  what  other 
measure  should  be  adopted.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  certain,  that  no 
plan  unites  them  all;  and  they  act  together  only  on  the  ground  of 
their  common  dissatisfaction  with  the  proposed  bill.  That  system 
which  seems  most  favored,  is  the  Circuit  system,  as  provided  for  in 
the  Senate's  bill  of  1819.  But  as  to  that  there  is  not  an  entire 
agreement.  One  provision  in  that  bill  was,  to  reduce  the  number 
of  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  five.  This  was  a  part,  too, 
of  the  original  resolution,  on  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia; 
but  it  was  afterwards  varied;  probably  to  meet  the  approbation  of 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  and  others  who  preferred  to 
keep  the  Court  at  its  present  number.  But  again,  other  gentlemen, 
who  are  in  opposition  to  this  bill,  have  still  recommended  a  reduc- 
tion of  that  number.  Now,  sir,  notwithstanding  such  reduction 
was  one  object,  or  was  to  be  one  effect,  of  the  law  of  1801,  it  was 
contemplated,  also,  in  the  Senate's  bill  of  1819,  and  has  been  again 
recommended  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  and  other  gentlemen, 
yet  I  cannot  persuade  myself,  that  any  ten  members  of  the  House, 
upon  mature  reflection,  would  now  be  in  favor  of  such  reduction. 
It  could  only  be  made  to  take  place  when  vacancies  should  occur 
on  the  bench,  by  death  or  resignation.  Of  the  seven  Judges  of 
which  the  Court  consists,  six  are  now  assigned  to  Circuits  in  the 
Atlantic  States — one  only  is  attached  to  the  Western  Districts. 
Now,  sir,  if  we  were  to  provide  for  a  reduction,  it  might  happen 
that  the  first  vacancy  would  be  in  the  situation  of  the  single  West- 
ern Judge.  In  that  event,  no  appointment  could  be  made  until  two 
other  vacancies  should  occur,  which  might  be  several  years.  I  sup 
pose  that  no  man  would  think  it  just,  or  wise,  or  prudent,  to  make 
such  legal  provision,  as  that  it  might  happen  that  there  should  be  no 
Western  Judge  at  all,  on  the  Supreme  Bench,  for  several  years  to 
come.  This  part  of  the  plan,  therefore,  was  wisely  abandoned  by 
the  gentleman.  The  Court  cannot  be  reduced;  and  the  question  is 
only  between  seven  Supreme  Judges,  with  ten  Circuit  Judges,  and 
ten  Supreme  Judges,  with  no  Circuit  Judges. 

I  will  take  notice  here  of  another  suggestion,  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania,  who  is  generally  so  sober-minded  and 
considerate  in  his  observations,  that  they  deserve  attention,  from 
respect  to  the  quarter  whence  they  proceed.  That  gentleman  re- 
commends that  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  should  be  relieved 
from  Circuit  duties,  as  individuals,  but  proposes,  nevertheless,  that 
the  whole  Court  should  become  migratory,  or  ambulatory,  and  that 
its  sessions  should  be  holden,  now  in  New  York  or  Boston,  now  in 
Washington  or  Richmond,  and  now  in  Kentucky  or  Ohio.  And  it 
is  singular  enough  that  this  arrangement  is  recommended  in  the 
same  speech,  in  which  the  authority  of  a  late  President  is  cited,  to 
prove,  that  considerations  arising  from  the  usually  advanced  age  of 
some  of  the  Judges,  and  their  reasonable  desire  for  repose,  ought 
to  lead  us  to  relieve  them  from  all  Circuit  duties  whatever.  Truly, 
sir,  this  is  a  strange  plan  of  relief.  Instead  of  holding  Courts  in 
his  own  State,  and  perhaps  in  his  own  town,  and  visiting  a  neigh- 
bouring State,  every  Judge  is  to  join  every  other  judge,  and  the 
whole  bench  to  make,  together,  a  sort  of  Judicial  progress.     They 


502 

are  to  visit  the  North,  and  the  South,  and  to  ascend  and  descend 
the  Alleghany.     Sir,  it  is  impossible  to  talk  seriously  against  such  a 
proposition.    To  state  it,  is  to  refute  it.    Let  me  merely  ask,  wheth- 
er, in  this  peregrination  of  the  Court,  it  is  proposed  that  they  take 
all  their  records  of  pending  suits,  and  the  whole  calendar  of  causes, 
with  them?     If  so,  then  the  Kentucky  client,  with  his  counsel,  is 
to  follow  the  Court  to  Boston;  and  the    Boston  client  to   pursue  it 
back  to  Kentucky.      Or  is  it,  on  the  contrary,  proposed,  that  there 
shall  be  grand  Judicial  divisions  in  the   country,  and  that,  while  at 
the  North,  for  example,  none  but  northern  appeals  shall  be  heard? 
If  this  be  intended,  then  I  ask  how  often  could  the  Court  sit,  in  each 
of  these  divisions?     Certainly,  not  oftener  than  once  in  two  years; 
probably,  not  oftener  than  once  in  three.     An  appeal,  therefore, 
might  be  brought  before  the  Appellate  Court,  in  two  or  three  years 
from  the  time  of  rendering  the  first  judgment;  and  supposing  judg- 
ment to  be  pronounced,  in  the  Appellate  Court,  at  the  second  term, 
it  would  be  decided  in  two  or  three  years  more.     But  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  examine  this  suggestion  further.     Sir,  everything  conspires 
to  prove,  that,  with  respect  to  the  great  duties  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
they  must  be  discharged  at  one  annual  session,  and  that  session  must 
be  holden  at  the  seat  of  Government.     If  such  provision  be  made  as 
that  the  business  of  the  year,  in  that  Court,  may  be  despatched, 
within  the  year,  reasonable  promptitude  in  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice will  be  attained:  and  such  provision,  I  believe,  may  be  made. 
Another  objection  advanced  by  the  member  from  Pennsylvania, 
applies  as  well  to  the  system  as  it  now  exists,  as  to  what  it  will  be  if 
this  bill  shall  pass.     The  honorable  member  thinks,  that  the  Appel- 
late Court  and  the  Court  from  which  the  appeal  comes,  should,  in 
all  cases,  be  kept  entirely  distinct  and  separate.     True  principle 
requires,  in  his  judgment,  that  the  Circuit  Judge  should  be  excluded 
from  any  participation  in  the  revision  of  his  own  judgments.     I  be- 
lieve, sir,  that  in  the  early  history  of  the  Court,  the  practice  was, 
that  the  Judge,  whose  opinion  was  under  revision,  did  not  partake 
in  the  deliberations  of  the   Court.     This   practice,  however,  was 
afterwards  altered,  and  the  Court  resolved  that  it  could  not  discharge 
the  Judge  from  the  duty  of  assisting  in  the  decision  of  the  appeal. 
Whether  the  two  Courts  ought  to  be  kept  so  absolutely  distinct  and 
separate  as  the  member  from  Pennsylvania  recommends,  is  not  so 
clear  a  question  as  that  competent  Judges  may  not  differ  upon  it. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  may  very  well  be  said,  that,  if  the  judgment  ap- 
pealed from  has  been  rendered  by  one  of  the  Judges  of  the  Appel- 
late Court,  courtesy,  kindness,  or  sympathy,  may  inspire  some  dis- 
position in  the  members  of  the  same  bench  to  affirm  that  judgment; 
and  that  the  general  habit  of  the  Court  may  thus  become  unfriendly 
to  a  free  and  unbiassed  revision.     On  the  other  hand,  it  maybe  con- 
tended, that,  if  there  be  no  medium  of  communication  between  the 
Court  of  the  first  instance,  and  the  Court  of  Appellate  jurisdiction, 
there  may  be  danger  that  the  reasons  of  the  first  may  not  be  always 
well  understood,  and  its  judgments  consequently  liable,  sometimes, 
to  be  erroneously  reversed.      It  certainly  is  not  true,  that  the  chance 
of  justice,  in  an  Appellate  Court,  is  always  precisely  equal  to  the 
chance  of  reversing  the  judgment  below;  although  it  is  necessary 
for  the  peace  of  society  and  the  termination  of  litigation,  to  take  it 


503 

for  granted,  as  a  general  rule,  that  that  is  decided  right  which  is  de- 
cided by  the  ultimate  tribunal.  To  guard  against  too  great  a  ten- 
dency to  reversals  in  Appellate  Courts,  it  has  often  been  thought 
expedient  to  furnish  a  full  opportunity  at  least,  of  setting  forth  the 
grounds  and  reasons  of  the  original  judgment.  Thus,  in  the  British 
House  of  Lords,  a  judgment  of  the  King's  Bench  is  not  ordinarily 
reversed  until  the  Judges  have  been  called  in,  and  the  reason  of 
their  several  opinions  stated  by  themselves.  And  thus,  too,  in  the 
Court  of  Errors  of  New  York,  the  Chancellor  and  the  Judges  are 
members  of  the  Court;  and,  although  they  do  not  vote  upon  the  re- 
vision of  their  own  judgments  or  decrees,  they  are  expected,  never- 
theless, to  assign  and  explain  their  reasons.  In  the  modern  practice 
of  the  Courts  of  Common  Law,  causes  are  constantly  and  daily 
revised  on  motions  for  new  trials  founded  on  the  supposed  misdirec- 
tion of  the  Judge  in  matter  of  law.  In  these  cases,  the  Judge 
himself  is  a  component  member  of  the  Court,  and  constantly  takes 
part  in  its  proceedings.  It  certainly  may  happen  in  such  cases, 
that  some  bias  of  preconceived  opinion  may  influence  the  individual 
Judge,  or  that  some  undue  portion  of  respect  for  the  judgment 
already  pronounced,  may  unconsciously  mingle  itself  with  the  judg- 
ments of  others.  But  the  universality  of  the  practice  sufficiently 
shows,  that  no  great  practical  evil  is  experienced  from  this  cause. 
It  has  been  said  in  England,  that  the  practice  of  revising  the  opin- 
ions of  Judges,  by  motions  for  new  trial,  instead  of  filing  bills  of 
exception,  and  suing  out  writs  of  error,  has  greatly  diminished  the 
practical  extent  of  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  House  of  Lords. 
This  shows,  that  suitors  are  not  advised  that  they  have  no  hope  to 
prevail  against  the  first  opinions  of  individual  Judges,  or  the 
sympathy  of  their  brethren.  Indeed,  sir,  Judges  of  the  highest  rank 
of  intellect  have  always  been  distinguished  for  the  candor  with 
which  they  reconsider  their  own  judgments.  A  man  who  should 
commend  himself  for  never  having  altered  his  opinion,  might  be 
praised  for  firmness  of  purpose;  but  men  would  think  of  him,  either 
that  he  was  a  good  deal  above  all  other  mortals,  or  somewhat  below 
the  most  enlightened  of  them.  He  who  is  not  wise  enough  to  be 
always  right,  should  be  wise  enough  to  change  his  opinion  when 
he  finds  it  wrong.  The  consistency  of  a  truly  great  man  is  proved 
by  his  uniform  attachment  to  truth  and  principle,  and  his  devotion 
to  the  better  reas  >n,  not  by  obstinate  attachment  to  first  formed 
notions.  Whoever  has  not  candor  enough,  for  good  cause,  to  change 
his  own  opinions,  is  not  safe  authority  to  change  the  opinions  of 
Other  men.  But  at  least,  sir,  the  member  from  Pennsylvania  will 
admit,  that,  if  an  evil  in  this  respect  exist  under  the  present  law, 
this  bill  will  afford  some  mitigation  of  that  evil;  by  augmenting  the 
number  of  the  Judges,  it  diminishes  the  influence  of  the  individual 
whose  judgment  may  be  under  revision:  and  so  far,  I  hope,  the  hon- 
orable member  may  himself  think  the  measure  productive  of  good. 

But,  sir,  before  we  postpone  to  another  year  the  consideration  of 
this  bill,  I  beg,  again,  to  remind  the  House  that  the  measure  is 
not  new.  It  is  not  new  in  its  general  character;  it  is  not  entirely 
new  in  its  particular  provisions.  The  necessity  of  some  reform  in 
the  Judicial  establishment  of  the  country,  has  been  presented  to 
every  Congress,  and  every  session  of  Congress,  since  the  peace  of 


504 

1815.  What  has  been  recommended,  at  different  times,  has  been 
already  frequently  stated.  It  is  enough,  now,  to  say,  that  the  very 
measure  of  extending  the  system  by  increasing  the  number  of  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  was  presented  to  the  House,  among 
other  measures  in  1823,  by  the  Judiciary  Committee;  and  that  so 
late  as  the  last  session,  it  received  a  distinct  expression  of  approba- 
tion in  the  other  branch  of  the  Legislature.  Gentlemen  have  refer- 
red to  the  bill  introduced  into  this  House  two  years  ago.  That  bill 
had  my  approbation;  I  so  declared  at  the  commencement  of  this  de- 
bate. It  proposed  to  effect  the  object  of  retaining  the  Judges  upon 
their  Circuits,  without  increasing  their  number.  But  it  was  complex. 
It  was  thought  to  be  unequal,  and  it  was  unsatisfactory.  There  ap- 
peared no  disposition  in  the  House  to  adopt  it;  and  when  the  same 
measure  in  substance  was  afterwards  proposed  in  the  other  branch 
of  the  Legislature,  it  received  the  approbation  of  no  more  than  a 
half  dozen  voices.  This  led  me  to  make  a  remark,  at  the  opening 
of  the  debate,  which  I  have  already  repeated,  that,  in  my  opinion, 
we  are  brought  to  the  narrow  ground  of  deciding  between  the  system 
of  Circuit  Courts  and  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  Shall  we  keep  the 
Judges  upon  the  Circuits  and  augment  their  number,  or  shall  we 
relieve  them  from  Circuit  duties,  and  appoint  special  Circuit  Judges 
in  their  places?  This,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  only  practical  ques- 
tion remaining  for  our  decision. 

I  do  not  intend,  sir,  to  go  again  into  the  general  question,  of  con- 
tinuing the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  discharge  of  Circuit 
duties.  My  opinion  has  been  already  expressed,  and  1  have  heard 
nothing  to  alter  it.  The  honorable  gentlemen  from  Virginia  does 
me  more  than  justice  in  explaining  any  expression  of  his  own  which 
might  refer  this  opinion  to  a  recent  origin,  or  to  any  new  circumstan- 
ces. I  confess,  sir,  that  four-and-twenty  years  ago,  when  this  matter 
was  discussed  in  Congress,  my  opinion,  as  far  as  I  can  be  supposed 
to  have  had  any  opinion  then  on  such  subjects,  inclined  to  the  argu- 
ment that  recommended  the  separation  of  the  Judges  from  the  Cir- 
cuits. But,  if  I  may  be  pardoned  for  referring  to  anything  so  lit- 
tle worthy  the  regard  of  the  House,  as  my  own  experience,  I  will 
say  that  that  experience  early  led  me  to  doubt  the  correctness  of 
the  first  impression,  and  that  I  became  satisfied  that  it  was  desirable, 
in  itself,  that  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  should  remain  in 
the  active  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  Circuits.  I  have  acted  in 
conformity  to  this  sentiment,  so  often  as  this  subject  has  been  be- 
fore Congress,  in  the  short  periods  that  I  have  been  a  member. 
I  still  feel  the  same  conviction;  and  though  I  shall  certainly  yield 
the  point,  rather  than  that  no  provision  for  the  existing  exigency 
should  be  made;  yet  I  should  feel  no  inconsiderable  pain  in  submit- 
ting to  such  necessity.  I  do  not  doubt,  indeed,  sir,  that,  if  the 
Judges  were  separated  from  Circuit  duties,  we  should  go  on  very 
well  for  some  years  to  come.  But,  looking  to  it  as  a  permanent 
system,  I  view  it  with  distrust  and  anxiety.  My  reasons  are  already 
before  the  House.  I  am  not  about  to  repeat  them.  I  beg  to  take 
this  occasion,  however,  to  correct  one  or  two  misapprehensions  of 
my  meaning  into  which  gentlemen  have  fallen.  I  did  not  say,  sir, 
that  I  wished  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Courts  to  go  upon  the  Cir- 
cuits, to  the  end  that  they  might  see,  in  the  country,  the  impression 


505 

which  their  opinions  made  upon  the  puhlic  sentiment.  Nothing  like 
it.  What  I  did  say,  was,  that  it  was  useful  that  the  Judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court  should  he  able  to  perceive  the  application  and  bear- 
ings of  the  opinions  of  that  Court,  upon  the  variety  of  causes  com- 
ing before  him  at  the  Circuit.  And  is  not  this  useful?  Is  it  not 
probable  that  the  Judge  will  lay  down  a  general  rule  with  the  great- 
est wisdom  and  precision,  who  comprehends,  in  his  view,  the  great- 
est number  of  instances  to  which  that  rule  is  to  be  applied?  As  far 
as  I  can  now  recall  the  train  of  my  own  ideas,  the  expression  was 
suggested  by  a  reflection  upon  the  laws  of  the  Western  States,  re- 
specting title  to  land.  We  hear  often  in  this  House  of  "Judicial 
Legislation."  If  any  such  thing  exist  in  this  country,  an  instance 
of  it,  doubtless,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Land  Laws  of  some  of  the 
Western  States.  In  Kentucky,  for  example,  titles  to  the  soil  ap- 
pear to  depend,  to  a  very  great  extent,  upon  a  series  of  Judicial 
decisions,  growing  out  of  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  Virginia, 
passed  in  1779,  for  the  sale  and  disposition  of  her  public  domain. 
The  Legislative  provision  was  very  short  and  general;  and  as  rights 
were  immediately  acquired  under  it,  the  want  of  Legislative  detail 
could  only  be  supplied  by  Judicial  construction  and  determination. 
Hence,  a  system  has  grown  up,  which  is  complex,  artificial,  and  ar- 
gumentative. I  do  not  impute  blame  to  the  Courts;  they  had  no 
option  but  to  decide  cases  as  they  arose,  upon  the  best  reasons. 
And,  although  I  am  a  very  incompetent  judge  in  the  case,  yet,  as 
far  as  I  am  informed,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  Courts,  both  of  the 
State,  and  of  the  United  States,  have  applied  just  principles  to  the 
state  of  things  which  they  found  existing.  But,  sir,  as  a  rule  laid 
down  at  Washington,  in  one  of  these  cases,  may  be  expected  to 
affect  500  others,  is  it  not  obvious  that  a  Judge,  bred  to  this  pecu- 
liar system  of  law,  and  having  also  many  of  these  cases  in  judgment 
before  him,  in  his  own  Circuit,  is  better  enabled  to  state,  to  limit, 
and  to  modify  the  general  rule,  than  another  Judge,  though  of  equal 
talents,  but  who  should  be  a  stranger  to  the  decisions  of  the  State  tri- 
bunals, a  stranger  to  the  opinions  and  practice  of  the  profession,  and 
a  stranger  to  all  cases  except  the  single  one  before  him  for  judgment  ? 
The  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania  asks,  sir,  whether  a 
statute  of  Vermont  cannot  be  as  well  understood  at  Washington,  as 
at  Windsor  or  Rutland.  Why,  sir,  put  in  that  shape,  the  question 
has  very  little  meaning.  But,  if  the  gentleman  intends  to  ask, 
whether  a  Judge,  who  has  been,  for  years,  in  the  constant  discharge 
of  the  duties  incumbent  upon  him  as  the  head  of  the  Circuit  Court 
in  Vermont,  and  who,  therefore,  has  had  the  statutes  of  that  State 
frequently  before  him,  has  learned  their  interpretation  by  the  State 
judications,  and  their  connexion  with  other  laws,  local  or  general? 
if  the  question  be,  whether  such  a  Judge  be  not,  probably,  more 
competent  to  understand  that  statute  than  another,  who,  with  no 
knowledge  of  its  local  interpretation,  or  local  application,  shall  look 
at  its  letter,  for  the  first  time,  in  the  Hall  of  the  Supreme  Court? 
If  this  be  the  question,  sir,  which  the  honorable  gentleman  means 
to  propound,  I  cheerfully  refer  him  to  the  judgment  of  this  House, 
and  to  his  own  good  understanding  for  an  answer.  Sir,  we  have 
heard  a  tone  of  observation  upon  this  subject  which  quite  surprises 
64  tt 


506 

me.  It  seems  to  imply  that  one  intelligent  man  is  as  fit  to  be  a 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  another.  The  perception  of  the  true 
rule  of  law,  and  its  true  application,  whether  of  local  or  general  law, 
is  supposed  to  be  entirely  easy,  because  there  are  many  banks  of 
statutes,  and  many  books  of  decisions.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  it 
seems,  that  a  Supreme  Court,  however  constituted,  would  readily 
understand,  in  the  instance  mentioned,  the  law  of  Vermont,  because 
the  Statutes  of  Vermont  are  accessible.  Nor  need  Louisiana  fear, 
that  her  peculiar  code  will  not  be  thoroughly  and  practically  known, 
inasmuch  as  a  printed  copy  will  be  found  in  the  public  libraries. 

Sir,  I  allude  to  such  arguments,  certainly  not  for  the  purpose  of 
undertaking  a  refutation  of  them,  but  only  to  express  my  regret  that 
they  should  have  found  place  in  this  discussion. — I  have  not  con- 
tended, sir,  for  anything  like  Judicial  representation.  I  care  not 
in  what  terms  of  reproach  such  an  idea  be  spoken  of.  It  is  none 
of  mine.  What  I  said  was,  and  I  still  say  it,  that,  with  so  many 
States,  having  various  and  different  systems,  with  such  a  variety* 
of  local  laws,  and  usages,  and  practices,  it  is  highly  important  that 
the  Supreme  Court  should  be  so  constituted  as  to  allow  a  fair  pros- 
pect, in  every  case,  that  these  laws  and  usages  should  be  known; 
and  that  I  know  nothing,  so  naturally  conducive  to  this  end,  as  the 
knowledge  and  experience  obtained  by  the  Judges  on  the  Circuits. 
Let  me  ask,  sir,  the  members  from  New  England,  if  they  have  ever 
found  any  man  this  side  of  the  North  River,  who  thoroughly  under- 
stood our  practice  of  special  attachment,  our  process  of  garnishment, 
or  trustee  process,  or  our  mode  of  extending  execution  upon  land? 
And  let  me  ask,  at  the  same  time,  whether  there  be  an  individual  of 
the  profession,  between  this  place  and  Maine,  who  is,  at  this  moment, 
competent  to  the  decisions  of  questions  arising  under  the  peculiar 
system  of  land  titles  of  Kentucky  or  Tennessee?  If  there  be  such  a 
gentleman,  I  confess  I  have  not  the  honor  of  his  acquaintance. 

On  the  general  question  of  the  utility  of  constant  occupation  in 
perfecting  the  character  of  a  Judge,  I  do  not  mean  now  to  enlarge. 
I  am  aware  that  men  will  differ  on  that  subject,  according  to  their 
different  means,  or  different  habits  of  observation.  To  me  it  seems 
as  clear  as  any  moral  proposition  whatever.  And  I  would  ask  the 
honorable  member  from  Rhode  Island,  since  he  has  referred  to  the 
Judge  of  the  first  Circuit,  and  has  spoken  of  him  in  terms  of  re- 
spect, not  undeserved,  whether  he  supposes  that  that  member  of 
the  Court,  if,  fifteen  years  ago,  on  receiving  his  commission,  he  had 
removed  to  this  City,  had  remained  here  always  since,  with  no  other 
connexion  with  his  profession  than  an  annual  session  of  six  weeks 
in  the  Supreme  Court,  would  have  been  the  Judge  he  now  is?  Sir, 
if  this  question  were  proposed  to  that  distinguished  person  himself, 
and" if  he  could  overcome  the  reluctance  which  he  would  naturally 
feel  to  speak  at  all  of  his  own  Judicial  qualities,  I  am  extremely  mis- 
taken if  he  would  not  refer  to  his  connexion  with  the  Circuit  Court, 
and  the  frequency  and  variety  of  his  labors  there,  as  efficient  causes  in 
the  production  of  that  degree  of  ability,  whatever  it  may  be  supposed 
to  be,  with  which  he  now  discharges  the  duties  of  his  station. 

There  is  not,  sir,  an  entire  revolution  wrought  in  the  mind  of  a 
professional  man,  by  appointing  him  a  Judge.  He  is  still  a  lawyer; 
and  if  he  have  but  little  to  do  as  a  Judge,  he  is,  in  effect,  a  lawyer 


507 

out  of  practice.  And,  how  is  it,  sir,  with  lawyers  who  are  not 
Judges,  and  are  ytt  out  of  practice?  Let  the  opinion,  and  the 
common  practice  of  mankind  decide  this.  If  you  require  profes- 
sional assistance,  in  whatever  relates  to  your  reputation,  your  prop- 
erty, or  your  family,  do  you  go  to  him  who  is  retired  from  the  bar, 
and  who  has  this  uninterrupted  leisure  to  pursue  his  readings  and 
reflections;  or  do  you  address  yourself  to  him,  on  the  contrary,  who 
is  in  the  midst  of  affairs,  busy  every  day,  and  every  hour  in  the  day, 
with  professional  pursuits?  But  I  will  not  follow  this  topic  farther, 
nor  dwell  on  this  part  of  the  case. 

I  have  already  said,  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  present  number  of 
the  Court  is  more  convenient  than  a  larger  number,  for  the  hearing 
of  a  certain  class  of  causes.  This  opinion  I  do  not  retract;  for  I 
believe  it  to  be  true.  But  the  question  is,  whether  this  inconve- 
nience be  not  more  than  balanced  by  other  advantages?    I  think  it  is 

It  has  been  again  and  again  urged,  that  this  bill  makes  no  prj- 
vision  for  clearing  off  the  term  business  of  the  Supreme  Court;  and 
strange  mistakes,  as  it  appears  to  me,  are  committed,  as  to  the 
amount  of  arrears,  in  that  Court.  I  believe  that  the  bill  intended 
to  remedy  that  evil,  will  remedy  it.  1  believe  there  is  time  enough 
for  the  Court  to  go  through  its  list  of  causes  here,  without  interfer- 
ing with  the  sessions  of  the  Circuit  Courts;  and,  notwithstanding 
the  mathematical  calculations  by  which  it  has  been  proved  that  the 
proposed  addition  to  the  length  of  the  term,  would  enable  the  Court 
to  decide  precisely  nine  additional  causes  and  no  more,  yet  I  have 
authority  to  say,  that  those  who  have  the  best  means  of  knowing, 
were  of  opinion,  two  years  ago,  that  the  proposed  alteration  of  the 
term,  would  enable  the  Court,  in  two  years,  to  go  through  all  the 
causes  before  it,  ready  for  hearing. 

It  has  been  said,  sir,  that  this  measure  will  injure  the  character 
of  the  Supreme  Court;  because,  as  we  increase  numbers,  we  lessen 
responsibility  in  the  same  proportion.  Doubtless,  as  a  general  pro- 
position, there  is  great  truth  in  this  remark.  A  Court,  so  numerous 
as  to  become  a  popular  body,  would  be  unfit  for  the  exercise  of  Ju- 
dicial functions.  This  is  certain.  But  then  this  general  truth,  al- 
though admitted,  does  not  enable  us  to  fix,  with  precision,  the  point 
at  which  this  evil  either  begins  to  be  felt  at  all,  or  to  become  consid- 
erable, still  less  where  it  is  serious  or  intolerable.  If  seven  be  quite 
few  enough,  it  may  not  be  easy  to  show,  that  ten  must  necessarily 
be  a  great  deal  too  many.  But  there  is  another  view  of  the  case, 
connected  with  what  I  have  said  heretofore  in  this  discussion,  and 
which  furnishes,  in  my  mind,  a  complete  answer  to  this  part  of  the 
argument;  and  that  is,  that  a  Judge  who  has  various  important  indi- 
vidual duties  to  perform,  in  the  Circuit  Court,  and  who  sits  in  the 
Appellate  Court  with  nine  others,  acts,  in  the  whole,  in  a  more  con- 
spicuous character,  and  under  the  pressure  of  more  immediate  and 
weighty  responsibility,  than  if  he  performed  no  individual  Circuit 
duty,  and  sat  on  the  appellate  bench  with  six  others  only. 

But  again,  it  has  been  argued,  that  to  increase  the  number  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  is  dangerous;  because,  with  such  a  precedent, 
Congress  may  hereafter  effect  any  purpose  of  its  own,  in  regard  to 
Judicial  decisions,  by  changing,  essentially,  the  whole  constitution 
of  the  Court,  and  overthrowing  its  settled  decisions,  through  the 


508 

means  of  augmenting  the  number  of  Judges.  Whenever  Congress, 
it  is  said,  may  dislike  the  constitutional  opinions  and  decisions  of 
the  Court,  it  may  mould  it  to  its  own  views,  upon  the  authority  of 
the  present  example.  But  these  abuses  of  power  are  not  to  be  an- 
ticipated or  supposed;  and,  therefore,  no  argument  results  from  them. 

If  we  were  to  be  allowed  to  imagine  that  the  Legislature  would 
act  in  entire  disregard  of  its  duty,  there  are  ways  enough,  certainly, 
beside  that  supposed,  in  which  it  might  destroy  the  Judiciary,  as 
well  as  any  other  branch  of  the  Government.  The  Judiciary  power 
is  conferred,  and  the  Supreme  Court  established,  by  the  Consti- 
tution; but  then  Legislative  acts  are  necessary  to  confer  jurisdic- 
tion on  inferior  Courts,  and  to  regulate  proceedings  in  all  Courts. 
If  Congress  should  neglect  the  duty  of  passing  such  laws,  the  Ju- 
dicial power  could  not  be  efficiently  exercised.  If,  for  example, 
Congress  were  to  repeal  the  25th  section  of  the  Judicial  act  of  1789, 
and  make  no  substitute,  there  would  be  no  mode  by  which  the  de- 
cisions of  State  tribunals,  on  questions  arising  under  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  the  United  States,  could  be  revised  in  the  Supreme 
Court.  Or,  if  they  were  to  repeal  the  11th  section  of  that  act,  the 
power  of  trying  causes  between  citizens  of  different  States,  in  the 
tribunals  of  this  Government,  could  not  be  exercised.  All  other 
branches  of  the  Government  depend,  in  like  manner,  for  their  con- 
tinuance in  life  and  being,  and  for  the  proper  exercise  of  their  powers, 
on  the  presumption  that  the  Legislature  will  discharge  its  constitution- 
al duties.  If  it  were  possible  to  adopt  the  opposite  supposition, 
doubtless  there  are  modes  enough  to  which  we  may  look,  to  see 
the  subversion,  both  of  the  Courts,  and  the  whole  Constitution. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  not  detain  you  by  further  reply  to  the  various 
objections  which  have  been  made  to  this  bill.  What  has  occurred 
tome  as  most  important,  I  have  noticed  either  now  or  heretofore; 
and  I  refer  the  whole  to  the  dispassionate  judgment  of  the  House. 
Allow  me,  however,  sir,  before  I  sit  down,  to  disavow,  on  my  own 
behalf,  and  on  behalf  of  the  Committee,  all  connexion  between  this 
measure  and  any  opinions  or  decisions,  given  or  expected,  in  any 
causes,  or  classes  of  causes,  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Of  the  merits 
of  the  case,  of  which  early  mention  was  made  in  the  debate,  I  know 
nothing.  I  presume  it  was  rightly  decided,  because  it  was  decided 
by  sworn  Judges,  composing  a  tribunal  in  which  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws  have  lodged  the  power  of  ultimate  judgment.  It 
would  be  unworthy,  indeed,  of  the  magnitude  of  this  occasion,  to 
bend  our  course  a  hair's  breadth  on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  either 
to  favor  or  to  oppose  what  we  might  like,  or  dislike,  in  regard  to 
particular  questions.  Surely  we  are  not  fit  for  this  great  work,  if 
motives  of  that  sort  can  possibly  come  near  us.  I  have  forborne, 
throughout  this  discussion,  from  all  expression  of  opinion  on  the 
manner  in  which  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  have  heretofore 
discharged,  and  still  discharge,  the  responsible  duties  of  their  station. 
I  should  feel  restraint  and  embarrassment,  were  I  to  make  the  at- 
tempt to  express  my  sentiments  on  that  point.  Professional  habits 
and  pursuits  connect  me  with  the  Court,  and  I  feel  that  it  is  not 
proper  that  I  should  speak  here,  of  the  personal  qualities  of  its  mem- 
bers, either  generally  or  individually.  They  shall  not  suffer,  at 
least,  from  any  ill-timed  or  clumsy  eulogy  of  mine.    I  could  not,  if  I 


509 

would,  make  them  better  known  than  they  are,  to  their  country;  nor 
could  I  either  strengthen  or  shake  the  foundation  of  character  and 
talent  upon  which  they  stand.  But  of  the  Judicial  branch  of  the 
Government,  and  of  the  institution  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  the 
head  of  that  branch,  I  beg  to  say  that  no  man  can  regard  it  with 
more  respect  and  attachment  than  myself.  It  may  have  friends  more 
able — it  has  none  more  sincere.  No  conviction  is  deeper  in  my 
mind,  than  that  the  maintenance  of  the  Judicial  power  is  essential 
and  indispensable  to  the  very  being  of  this  Government.  The 
Constitution,  without  it,  would  be  no  Constitution — the  Government, 
no  Government.  I  am  deeply  sensible,  too,  and,  as  I  think,  every 
man  must  be  whose  eyes  have  been  open  to  what  has  passed  around 
him  for  the  last  twenty  years,  that  the  Judicial  power  is  the  protect- 
ing power  of  the  whole  Government.  Its  position  is  upon  the  outer 
wall.  From  the  very  nature  of  things,  and  the  frame  of  the  Consti- 
tution, it  forms  the  point  at  which  our  different  systems  of  Govern- 
ment meet  in  collision,  when  collision  unhappily  exists.  By  the 
absolute  necessity  of  the  case,  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  be- 
come Judges  of  the  extent  of  constitutional  powers.  They  are,  if  I 
may  so  call  them,  the  great  arbitrators  between  contending  sover- 
eignties. Every  man  is  able  to  see,  how  delicate  and  how  critical 
must  be  the  exercise  of  such  powers,  in  free  and  popular  Govern- 
ments. Suspicion  and  jealousy  are  easily  excited,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, against  a  body,  necessarily  {e\v  in  number,  and  posses- 
sing, by  the  Constitution,  a  permanent  tenure  of  office.  While 
public  men,  in  more  popular  parts  of  the  Government,  may  escape 
without  rebuke,  notwithstanding  they  may  sometimes  act  upon  opin- 
ions which  are  not  acceptable,  that  impunity  is  not  to  be  expected 
in  behalf  of  Judicial  tribunals.  It  cannot  but  have  attracted  obser- 
vation, that,  in  the  history  of  our  Government,  the  Courts  have  not 
been  able  to  avoid  severe,  and  sometimes  angry  complaint,  for  giving 
their  sanction  to  those  public  measures,  which  the  Representatives 
of  the  people  had  adopted,  without  exciting  particular  disquietude. 
Members  of  this  and  the  other  House  of  Congress,  acting  volunta- 
rily, and  in  the  exercise  of  their  general  discretion,  have  enacted 
laws,  without  incurring  an  uncommon  degree  of  dislike  or  resent- 
ment; and  yet,  when  those  very  laws  have  been  brought  before  the 
Court,  and  the  question  of  their  validity  distinctly  raised,  and  neces- 
sary to  be  determined,  the  Judges,  affirming  the  constitutional  validity 
of  such  acts,  although  the  occasion  was  forced  upon  them,  and  they 
were  absolutely  bound  to  express  the  one  opinion  or  the  other,  have, 
nevertheless,  not  escaped  a  severity  of  reproach,  bordering  upon  the 
very  verge  of  denunciation.  This  experience,  while  it  teaches  us 
the  dangers  which  environ  this  Department,  instructs  us  most  persua- 
sively, in  its  importance.  For  its  own  security,  and  the  security  of 
the  other  branches  of  the  Government,  it  requires  such  an  extraor- 
dinary union  of  discretion  and  firmness,  of  ability  and  moderation, 
that  nothing  in  the  country  is  too  distinguished  for  sober  sense,  too 
gifted  with  powerful  talent,  to  fill  the  situations  belonging  to  it 


TT* 


MISCELLANIES 


[From  the  N.  A.  Review  of  1820.] 

EXAMINATION    OF    SOME    REMARKS   IN    THE   QUARTERLY   REVIEW  ON    THE 
LAWS  OF  CREDITOR  AND  DEBTOR  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  Quarterly  Review  for  May  1819  contained  two  articles  con- 
cerning the  United  States;  one  a  review  of  Fearon's*  book  of 
travels,  and  the  other  a  review  of  Mr.  Bristed's  book  upon  the 
resources  of  America.  The  Quarterly  Review  is,  as  everybody 
knows,  extensively  circulated,  and  much  read  in  this  country;  and 
these  articles  excited,  at  the  time  of  their  appearance,  no  small 
degree  of  attention.  It  would  be  difficult,  we  imagine,  in  the  same 
number  of  pages,  to  crowd  more  misrepresentation,  or  betray  more 
ignorance,  than  appears  in  these  articles,  especially  that  which  we 
have  first  mentioned.  To  the  common  vaporings  of  the  English 
presses  we  pay  little  attention.  These  oracles  are  no  more  to  be 
regarded,  in  their  vituperations  of  the  government  and  people  of 
this  country,  than  similar  oracles  among  ourselves,  in  their  abuse  of 
the  government  and  people  of  England.  The  leaders  of  such  assem- 
blages as  the  Manchester  mob,  and  the  orators  in  the  palace-yard, 
find  it  convenient  to  inflame  the  passions  of  their  auditors  by  declaim- 
ing, in  terms  of  high  panegyric,  of  the  condition  of  America;  wise- 
ly contriving,  by  a  sort  of  contrast,  to  breed  discontent,  and  to 
sharpen  the  feeling  of  hatred  towards  their  own  government.  Other 
speakers  and  other  writers,  finding  or  thinking  it  necessary  to  re- 
fute these  representations,  naturally  enough  run  into  opposite  ex- 
tremes, and  set  off  their  own  condemnation  and  abuse  of  America 
against  the  extravagant  encomiums  of  their  adversaries.  All  this  is 
in  the  course  of  things.  It  is  no  more  than  must  always  be  expect- 
ed, in  a  country  with  such  a  government,  as  that  of  England;  and  it 
is  of  no  consequence  to  us,  what  is  the  issue  of  this  little  epd  low 
strife  of  temporary  politics.  We  suffer  about  equally  by  the  com- 
mendation of  one  party  and  the  abuse  of  the  other;  and  we  ought  to 
be  regardless  of  both. 

But  different,  far  different,  is  the  case,  when  a  work  of  estab- 
lished reputation  in  the  literary  world  professes  to  discuss  our 
character  and  condition.  When  gentlemen  and  scholars  undertake 
to  write  about  us,  we  have  more  interest  in  what  they  say,  and  are 

♦The  last  that  we  have  heard  of  this  author  is,  that  some  time  last  winter  a  criminal 
information  was  moved  for  against  him,  in  the  King's  Bench,  for  a  conspiracy  to  produce  P 
riot,  at  the  election  of  the  Lord  Mayor. 


511 

less  disposed  to  acquiesce  in  misrepresentation  and  injustice.  The 
writers  of  the  articles  in  question  seem  to  have  considered  them- 
selves as  speaking  about  America,  but  not  to  America.  They  do 
not  take  the  United  States  into  the  account  of  those  who  are  to 
read  their  works,  and  judge  of  them.  They  do  not  look  at  the 
reading  and  thinking  men  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  as  forming  any 
part  of  that  great  tribunal  of  the  Public,  to  which  they  acknow- 
ledge a  responsibility.  In  this  respect,  in  our  humble  judgment, 
they  commit  an  oversight.  English  scholars,  English  editors,  and 
English  politicians  have  heretofore  felt  an  unconquerable  reluctance 
to  admit  the  people  of  this  country  to  a  participation  of  those  hon- 
ors which  belong  to  the  civilized  world,  and  the  great  family  of 
Christian  communities.  They  have  been  unwilling  to  see  that  North 
America  has  ceased  to  be  a  colony;  and  still  desire  to  regard  her, 
so  far  as  respects  acquirements,  talents,  and  character,  like  Jamai- 
ca, Malta,  or  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  This  attempt,  we  may  be 
allowed  to  say,  will  not  succeed.  America  is  entitled  to  her  place 
among  the  nations,  and  nothing  can  keep  her  from  it.  It  is  in 
nature,  as  it  appears  to  be  in  the  purpose  of  Providence,  that  a 
people  shall,  within  a  short  period  of  time,  exist  on  this  side 
the  ocean,  speaking  the  English  language,  springing  principally 
from  English  origin,  adopting  English  laws,  and  possessing  the 
blessings  of  many  of  the  most  valuable  of  English  institutions,  so 
numerous,  that  the  amount  of  British  population,  added  or  subtrac- 
ted, would  hardly  make  a  sensible  difference.  Already  the  United 
States  contain  as  many  people  as  England,  and  among  them  there 
is,  if  not  as  full,  yet  as  respectable  a  proportion  belonging  to  the 
reading  class.  Whatever  appears  in  England,  and  attracts  •atten- 
tion there,  in  the  departments  of  science,  literature,  poetry,  or 
politics,  appears  here  also,  thirty  days  afterwards,  with  uniform 
regularity.  We  receive  these  reviews,  wet  from  the  press,  and  read 
and  reprint  and  circulate  them.  We  venture  to  say,  that  in  no 
part  of  the  Island  of  Great  Britain,  London  excepted,  is  reading  so 
general  among  the  population,  as  in  New  England.  Having  thus, 
as  we  believe  we  have,  in  the  United  States,  a  larger  reading  com- 
munity, than  either  Scotland  or  Ireland,  how  is  it,  that  America  is 
not  to  compose  a  part,  and  an  important  part,  of  that  Public,  before 
which  a  scientific  and  literary  journal,  composed  and  published  in 
the  English  language,  is  to  stand  in  judgment  ?  We  would  modes- 
tly, but  firmly,  insist  on  this  reasonable  participation  in  the  au- 
thority and  dignity  of  public  opinion.  W7e  hold  the  right,  and 
mean  both  to  exercise  and  to  defend  it,  of  having  and  of  expres- 
sing opinions  on  subjects  of  science  and  literature,  and  respecting 
those  who  discuss  these  subjects. 

It  is  a  natural  prejudice,  that  an  old  country  should  be  unwilling 
to  admit  a  young  one  upon  any  terms  of  equality.  England  her- 
self is  not  thought  old  enough,  nor  respectable  enough,  to  assume 
the  port  and  bearing  of  an  equal  in  the  celestial  empire  of  China ; 
and  there  are  elsewhere,  as  well  as  at  Pekin,  a  dislike  and  scorn 
for  the  novi  homines.  English  politicians  and  English  scholars 
entertain  towards  us,  when  we  press  for  admittance  into  their  socie- 
ty and  fellowship,  something  like  that  feeling,  at  once  scornful  and 


512 

jealous,  with  which  the  Earl  of  Wharton  addressed  the  twelve  new 
peers  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne.  Yet  this  prejudice  and  this 
reluctance  must  give  way  ;  this  scorn  must  be  subdued,  and  this 
jealousy,  if  it  be  not,  as  it  ought  to  be,  eradicated,  must  become 
silent. 

We,  of  the  United  States,  have  numbers  and  power  and  wealth, 
and  a  growing  commerce,  and  a  most  extensive  country,  and,  as  we 
may  think  without  vanity,  some  portion  of  that  intelligence  and 
spirit,  which  belongs  to  our  more  cultivated  neighbours.  Once  for 
all,  then,  if  we  can  express  ourselves  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to 
incur  the  imputation  of  arrogance,  we  wish  to  say,  that  we  consider 
ourselves  as  forming  a  part,  and  a  respectable  part,  of  the  great 
public  of  civilized  and  Christian  nations;  having  an  interest  in  such 
subjects  discussed  before  that  public,  as  are  not  in  themselves  local 
or  peculiar;  with  a  good  right  of  contribution,  as  far  as  our  ability 
admits,  to  those  discussions  ourselves;  and  above  all  a  right  to  fair 
dealing  and  gentlemanly  treatment  from  all  who  profess  to  write 
for  the  good  of  this  public,  and  to  be  answerable  to  its  judgment.. 

We  put  forth  this  claim  in  behalf  of  our  country;  and  in  behalf 
of  the  informed  and  reading  class  of  its  citizens.  It  is  for  the 
English  writers  to  say,  not  whether  it  shall  be  admitted;  that  ques- 
tion we  do  not  refer  to  their  arbitrament:  but  whether,  on  their  part, 
it  shall  be  admitted  freely,  and  with  courtesy;  or  with  hesitation, 
reluctance,  ill  nature,  and  ill  manners. 

We  have  space  at  present  to  take  notice  of  one  only  of  the  top- 
ics, discussed  in  these  articles.  It  relates  to  the  American  law  of 
creditor  and  debtor;  about  which  the  reviewer  has  published  extracts 
from  Mr.  Bristed's  book,  with  comments.  Mr.  Bristed  is  an  En- 
glishman, by  birth  and  education.  He  has  lived,  as  it  appears,  for 
sometime  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  has  published  a  book  upon 
the  resources  of  this  country.  Some  observations  were  made  on 
that  work  in  a  former  number  of  this  journal.  Referring  to  these 
observations,  we  have  now  only  to  say  of  Mr.  Bristed's  general 
character,  as  an  authority,  that  he  is  beyond  ordinary  measure  des- 
titute of  all  accuracy  and  precision.  There  are,  of  course,  many 
important  facts  collected  in  this  book,  and  a  mass  of  extracts  from 
public  documents,  in  some  degree  useful,  perhaps,  to  those  who  do 
not  possess  the  same  matter  in  a  better  form  ;  but  his  own  opinions, 
and  inferences,  and  observations  upon  manners,  are  not  to  be 
received  but  with  great  allowance.  Mr.  Bristed  never  speaks  with 
any  qualification.  He  has  little  general,  and  no  intimate  knowledge 
of  the  state  of  things  in  this  country,  and  he  speaks  only  from 
what  lies  within  his  own  immediate  and  confined  observation.  With 
him  all  peculiarities  are  general  truths,  and  all  exceptions  become 
rules.  We  have  hardly  patience  with  a  man,  who  could  write  such 
a  paragraph,  as  the  first  quoted  from  his  book,  in  the  article  in  the 
Quarterly  Review,  which  we  beg  leave  to  transcribe  again,  and  to 
proceed  to  make  some  remarks  upon  it. 

"  The  laws  of  this  country  generally  favor  the  debtor  at  the  expense  of  the  cred- 
itor, and  so  far  encourage  dishonesty.  The  number  of  insolvents  in  every  state  is 
prodigious,  and  continually  increasing.  They  very  seldom  pay  any  part  of  their 
debts,  but  get  discharged  by  the  state  insolvent  acts  with  great  facility,  secrete 
what  property  they  please  for  their  own  use,  without  the  creditor's  being  able  to 


513 

touch  a  single  stiver.  There  is  no  bankrupt  law  in  the  United  States,  and  no  appeal, 
in  these  matters,  to  the  Federal  courts  ;  whence  in  every  state  the  insolvent  acts 
operate  as  a  general  jail  delivery  of  all  debtors,  and  a  permanent  scheme,  by  which 
creditors  are  defrauded  of  their  property.  The  British  merchants  and  manufacturers, 
who  have  trusted  our  [our  ?]  people,  doubtless  understand  this." 

He  adds,  "  that  in  a  single  city,  New  York,  more  than  six  thou- 
sand of  its  inhabitants  were  declared  insolvent  in  one  year." 

Now  in  the  first  place,  almost  every  matter  of  fact ,  asserted 
in  this  paragraph,  is  stated  incorrectly  and  untruly.  It  is  not 
true,  that  in  every  state  the  insolvent  laws  operate  as  a  general  jail 
delivery  of  all  debtors  ;  there  being,  in  a  majority  of  the  states,  no 
insolvent  law  at  all. 

It  is  not  true,  that  there  is  no  appeal  in  these  matters,  to  the  Fed- 
eral courts:  on  the  contrary,  there  is  an  appeal,  in  all  cases,  from 
decisions  in  the  state  courts,  on  the  insolvent  laws  of  the  state,  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ;  an  appeal,  which  exists 
not  only  theoretically,  but  practically,  and  has  been  resorted  to 
often,  and  with  effect. 

It  is  not  true,  that  the  number  of  insolvents,  meaning  such  as 
have  been  discharged  under  statute  provisions,  is  prodigious  in 
every  state,  and  increasing.  In  most  of  the  states,  as  we  have 
observed,  there  are  no  such  laws,  and  of  course  no  '  prodigious 
numbers,'  who  have  been,  or  who  can  be  discharged  under  such 
laws.  Having  now  shown  how  destitute  of  all  correctness  and  all 
frail  is  the  foregoing  paragraph  from  Mr.  Bristed's  book,  we  pro- 
ceed to  describe  the  real  state  of  the  case. 

At  the  formation  of  the  present  government  in  1787,  it  was  pro- 
vided by  the  national  constitution,  that  Congress  should  have  power 
to  establish  uniform  rules  on  the  subject  of  Bankruptcy  throughout 
the  United  States.  This  power  was  not  exercised  until  1798,  when 
a  uniform  system  of  Bankruptcy  was  established  by  act  of  Con- 
gress. It  met  with  great  opposition,  arising  in  a  great  variety  of 
motives,  and  was  repealed  four  or  five  years  afterwards.  It  is,  no 
doubt,  to  be  lamented  that  a  fair  experiment  was  not  given  to  this 
law.  It  is  a  subject  on  which  it  seems  necessary  that  there  should 
be  some  legislative  provision  ;  and  notwithstanding  the  frauds 
which  will  be,  and  are  committed  under  bankrupt  laws,  even 
well  administered,  and  which  have  led  such  men  as  Lord  Eldon, 
and  Sir  Samuel  Romily  to  express  doubts  of  their  general  utility, 
yet  we  know  not  any  other  mode  of  providing  for  the  cases  continu- 
ally arising  in  commercial  societies,  and  which  call  loudly  for  some 
provision.  After  the  repeal  of  the  law,  however,  individual  states, 
acting  upon  the  supposition  that  as  Congress  had  not  exercised  the 
power,  or  had  discontinued  its  exercise,  of  establishing  a  general 
law,  for  the  whole  country,  they  had  a  right  to  provide  insolvent 
laws  as  a  part  of  their  own  local  legislation,  enacted  such  laws, 
and  gave  them  operation.  Among  others,  the  state  of  New  York 
passed  an  insolvent  law,  in  the  year  1811,  and,  as  was  to  be  expec- 
ted in  the  first  year  of  its  operation,  many  discharges  were  obtained 
under  it.  It  was  found  that  this  law  not  only  gave  too  great  facili- 
ties in  obtaining  discharges,  but  that  it  led  also  to  fraudulent  appli- 
cations  from   debtors   coming   from   other   states.      The   law   was 


514 

repealed,  we  believe,  within  a  year  after  its  enactment;  and  it  was, 
we  suppose,  during  the  period  of  this  very  short  and  extraordinary 
act,  that  Mr.  Bristed  finds  his  six  thousand  discharged  in  one  year. 
Here  then  is  a  single  act,  from  which  a  general  law,  and  a  general 
practice,  is  unhesitatingly  inferred.  '  The  British  merchants  and 
manufacturers  who  have  trusted  our  people  doubtless  understand 
this.'  Does  Mr.  Bristed  mean  that  tfie  credit  of  American  mer- 
chants is  not  good,  in  England?  It  would  be  new  to  us,  indeed, 
to  hear  such  a  remark.  Surely  never  was,  not  only  all  due  credit, 
but  all  undue  credit  more  easily  obtained,  than  by  the  American 
merchants,  for  British  manufactures. 

The  flippant  and  off-hand  remark,  that  the  laws  of  this  country 
generally  favor  the  debtor,  at  the  expense  of  the  creditor,  is  grossly 
incorrect,  and  can  hardly  be  pardoned.  There  may  be,  among  the 
state  legislatures,  an  occasional  relaxation,  but  to  say  that  the  gen- 
eral scope  of  the  laws  of  this  country  is  to  favor  the  debtor  at  the 
expense  of  the  creditor,  is  absolutely  untrue,  and  calumnious.  We 
still  hold,  in  almost,  if  not  in  every  state,  to  the  imprisonment  of  the 
person  for  debt;  we  still  hold  every  man,  to  be  in  law  capable  of 
paying  to  the  uttermost  farthing;  and  therefore  we  apply  the  old 
principle,  solvat  per  corpus,  qui  non  possit  crumena.  We  discourage 
marriage  settlements,  and  family  settlements,  to  an  extent,  in  the 
opinion  of  some,  far  too  great;  our  lawgivers  and  tribunals  all  look 
with  jealousy  on  trusts  and  entailments,  and  all  the  various  modes 
of  tying  up  estates,  and  rendering  them  inalienable;  and  all  this 
simply  from  respect  to  the  rights  of  creditors. 

In  most  of  the  states  also,  the  fee  simple  of  the  debtor's  estate 
may  be  taken,  to  satisfy  the  creditor,  and  lastly,  we  hold,  that  what- 
ever laws  the  individual  states  may  pass  respecting  insolvents,  such 
laws,  if  they  in  any  manner  impair  the  validity  of  contracts,  are  abso- 
lutely null  and  void.  We  have  from  the  first  introduced  and  main- 
tained this  great  and  salutary,  and  protecting  principle  in  the  funda- 
mental articles  of  the  national  government;  and  yet  Mr.  Bristed  can 
say,  and  the  reviewers  in  England  can  believe,  that  in  this  country  the 
laws  are  generally  made  to  favor  debtors  at  the  expense  of  the  credi- 
tors! Every  well  informed  man  knows  the  difficulty  of  legislating  on 
the  subject  of  insolvents;  and  none  better  than  the  eminent  living 
judicial  characters  in  England.  We  now  speak  of  the  insolvent  laws, 
as  distinguished  from  the  bankrupt  laws;  since  the  insolvent  laws 
which  individual  states  have  sometimes  enacted  in  this  country,  re- 
semble the  cessio  bonorum  of  the  civil  law,  and  the  insolvent  laws  of 
England,  much  more  than  the  bankrupt  system  of  that  country. 

We  wish,  before  gentlemen  in  England  give  credit  to  such  loose 
calumnies  as  this  of  Mr.  Bristed's  upon  the  laws  for  the  relief  of 
insolvent  debtors  in  the  United  States,  they  would  attend  to  their 
own  case,  and  to  the  difficulties  which  they  themselves  have  expe- 
rienced on  this  subject.  This  would,  we  think,  give  some  modera- 
tion to  their  fault-finding,  and  some  measure  to  their  language  of 
rebuke.  We  wish  they  would  consult  Lord  Eldon,  Lord  Redesdale, 
Lord  Aukland,  Mr.  Sergeant  Runnington,  the  late,  and  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds, the  present  judge  of  the  insolvent  debtor's  court,  upon  the 
unavoidable  obstacles,  and  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way  of  uniting 


515 

on  this  subject  the  just  claims  of  creditors,  with  due  compassion  for 
honest  but  unfortunate  debtors.  When  they  have  done  this,  we 
shall  hear  with  somewhat  more  patience,  what  they  may  see  to  find 
fault  with,  in  systems  adopted  by  their  neighbours. 

It  is  well  known  that  it  has  been  the  practice  of  Parliament  to 
grant  occasional  relief  to  such  insolvent  debtors,  as  do  not  come 
within  the  provision  of  the  bankrupt  laws.  And  it  being  thought 
expedient  to  make  a  permanent  provision  on  the  subject,  Parliament 
passed  the  act  53  Geo.  III.  chap.  102.  This  act,  we  believe,  was 
drawn  by  Lord  Redesdale,  a  man  of  the  highest  legal  eminence, 
and  of  great  experience.  It  has  sixty  sections,  and  appears  to  have 
been  prepared  with  the  utmost  care  and  solicitude,  in  order  that  it 
might  prevent,  on  the  one  hand,  the  harsh  and  unfeeling  confine- 
ment of  honest  debtors,  and  on  the  other,  the  practice  of  fraud  by 
the  dishonest.  This  act  was  limited  to  November  1818,  and  to  the 
end  of  the  next  session  of  Parliament.  The  powers  and  duties  of 
the  act  were  to  be  exercised  and  discharged  by  a  judge,  or  commis- 
sioner, who  should  be  some  "fit  person,  being  a  barrister  or  lawyerof 
six  years'  standing  at  the  court,"  and  Mr.  Sergeant  Runnington  was 
appointed  to  this  office.  We  have  already  said,  that  the  act  con- 
tained all  the  provision  which  could  be  thought  of,  to  prevent  fraud 
on  the  one  hand,  and  cruelty  on  the  other;  an  application  to  be  dis- 
charged was  to  be  accompanied  with  an  offer  to  assign  all  his  prop- 
erty, excepting  wearing  apparel,  bedding,  and  tools  of  his  trade, 
never  exceeding  in  all  twenty  pounds;  and  there  must  be  annexed 
to  the  petition  a  schedule  of  property  and  effects,  and  another  of 
debts  due  by  the  prisoner,  and  the  prisoners'  oath  to  the  truth  of 
these  schedules;  and  every  creditor  to  be  served  with  a  copy  of  the 
petition  and  schedule,  and  notice  inserted  in  the  Gazette,  and  other 
newspapers,  and  creditors  to  have  a  right  to  appear  and  to  put  any 
questions  to  the  prisoner,  touching  his  conduct  under  oath;  and  as- 
signees to  be  appointed  to  receive  his  assets,  books,  &c.  of  all  sorts; 
and  then  the  court,  after  all,  may  annul  his  discharge  if  it  shall  ap- 
pear to  have  been  obtained  by  fraud,  or  revoke  it,  if  it  afterwards 
appear  that  he  has  ability  to  pay  his  debts.  The  assignees  are  re- 
quired to  get  in  effects  and  debts,  and  make  distribution  at  the  end 
of  three  months,  &c.  with  proper  penalties  for  perjury;  with  a  train 
of  exceptions,  such  as  attorneys  embezzling  money,  persons  getting 
money  on  false  pretences,  &c.  who  are  not  to  be  allowed  the  benefit 
of  the  law. 

Here  then  is  a  law  for  the  relief  of  insolvent  debtors,  fully  con- 
sidered, and  deliberately  passed,  guarded  by  all  practicable  securities, 
and  limitations,  and  placed  under  the  administration  of  a  competent 
and  learned  court;  and  what  is  found  to  be  the  result?  The  law 
was  to  expire  in  July  last,  at  the  end  of  the  last  session  of  parliament, 
unless  continued  by  another  act.  To  prevent  this  continuing  act, 
very  numerous  and  very  respectable  petitions  were  laid  on  the  ta- 
ble of  the  Lords  and  Commons.  Innumerable  and  intolerable  frauds 
were  alleged  to  have  been  perpetrated  in  the  cases  arising  under  the 
act.  A  committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  reported,  if  we  mis- 
take not,  "that  during  the  whole  duration  of  the  law,  and  out  of 
the  prodigious  number  of  cases  in  which  debtors  had  surrendered 


516 

their  property,  and  been  discharged,  there  had  not  been  received 
above  a  penny  in  the  pound  upon  the  average  of  the  debts  dischar- 
ged." This  we  quote  from  memory,  but  our  statement  is  sufficiently 
exact  for  our  purpose. 

We  have  thus  alluded  to  the  experience  of  England  on  the  sub- 
ject of  insolvent  debtors,  not  by  way  of  an  idle  retort,  but  to  expose 
the  intrinsic  difficulty  of  the  subject,  and  to  shut  up  the  mouths  of 
half-informed,  superficial  and  self-sufficient  scribblers  and  rebukers, 
on  both  sides  the  Atlantic.  Would  it  not  be  wrong  from  the  facts 
which  we  have  stated  to  infer  a  plausible  case  of  enormous  fraud 
and  corruption  against  English  justice?  If  we  were  to  try  our  hand 
at  such  a  paragraph  as  Mr.  Bristed  has  written  and  the  Quarterly 
Review  has  cited  against  us,  might  we  not  say,  "  England  is  not  a 
country  for  a  man  to  recover  his  debts.  All  her  merchants,  who 
are  debtors,  are  provided  for,  by  what  she  calls  her  system  of  Bank- 
ruptcy, a  stupendous  system,  which  many  of  her  most  eminent  law- 
yers have  been  honest  enough  to  confess  was  productive  of  unmeas- 
ured fraud  and  injustice;  and  as  to  all  the  rest  of  her  subjects  who 
may  owe  anything,  there  is  the  insolvent  debtor's  court,  where  any- 
body may  be  discharged;  and  of  this  court  it  is  enough  to  say,  that 
during  all  its  existence,  although  no  man  can  be  discharged  without 
surrendering  all  his  property,  which  the  law  says  shall  go  to  his 
creditors,  yet  in  truth  no  creditor  ever  gets  anything.  How  much 
the  officers  of  the  court  get,  we  do  not  know;  and  what  becomes  of 
that  part  which  they  do  not  get,  we  do  not  know,  but  we  do  know 
that  the  creditor  gets  nothing."  We  forbear.  It  is  hardly  fit  to 
write  such  paragraphs,  even  for  the  mere  purpose  of  showing  how 
easily  they  may  be  written.  It  is  a  dangerous  curiosity  to  commit 
sins,  only  to  learn  or  to  show  with  what  facility  sins  may  be  com- 
mitted. 

An  act  of  the  last  session  of  Parliament  was  intended,  we  believe, 
to  have  continued  the  insolvent  debtor's  law  to  the  present  session. 
Owing  to  mistake,  however,  the  purpose  was  not  effected,  and  the 
law  is  supposed  to  have  expired,  and  proceedings  under  it  are  for 
the  present  discontinued.  The  subject,  however,  is  before  Parlia- 
ment, and  it  will  give  us  unmixed  pleasure  if  the  English  government 
shall  be  able  to  adopt  such  legislation  on  this  equally  important  and 
difficult  subject  as  shall  satisfy  the  necessities  of  its  own  case,  and 
afford  light  to  the  lawgivers  of  other  countries.  In  the  meantime 
let  it  not  be  understood,  that  the  law  of  creditor  and  debtor  is  in  a 
worse  state  for  the  creditor  in  this  country  than  in  others.  As  be- 
fore observed,  some  of  the  states  may  have  occasionally  departed, 
and  may  still  occasionally  depart  from  the  dictates  of  enlightened 
wisdom  on  this  subject,  from  a  disposition  to  relieve  hardship,  and 
from  a  vain  and  illusory  hope  of  finding,  in  mere  remedial  legislation, 
a  relief  against  the  pressure  of  the  times,  and  the  stagnation  of 
trade.  But  the  general  scope  and  tendency  of  our  laws  is  to  give 
creditors  full  and  ample  remedies,  and  to  render  property  of  all  sorts 
liable  for  debts.  We  may  say,  indeed,  that  there  is  no  country  in 
the  world,  in  which  a  regard  for  the  rights  of  property  is  more  like- 
ly to  prevail;  for  in  no  country  was  property  ever  so  equally  diffused, 


517 

or  was  so  great  a  portion  of  the  numerical  population  interested 
directly  in  the  laws  which  protect  it.  We  look  upon  this  so  equal 
distribution  of  property,  and  to  the  regard  paid  to  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty in  this  country,  as  the  great  safeguards  and  security  of  the 
commonwealth.  Almost  every  man  among  us  is  interested  in  pre- 
serving the  state  of  things  as  it  is;  because  almost  every  man  pos- 
sesses property,  and  while  he  cannot  see  what  he  might  gain,  he 
sees  clearly  what  he  might  lose,  by  change.  We  think  we  may 
perceive  here  a  fair  ground  of  belief  in  the  preservation  of  our  re- 
publican forms  of  government.  It  is  not  less  the  language  of  reason 
than  of  experience,  that  property  should  have  influence  in  the  state, 
whenever  such  a  state  of  things  exists,  as  that  military  fame  is  not 
supreme.  If  the  tendency  of  the  laws  and  institutions  of  society 
be  such,  as  that  property  accumulates  in  few  hands,  a  real  aristoc- 
racy, in  effect,  exists  in  the  land.  This  is  not  a  merely  artificial, 
but  a  natural  aristocracy;  a  concentration  of  political  power  and  in- 
fluence in  few  hands,  in  consequence  of  large  masses  of  property 
having  accumulated  in  such  hands.  There  is  not  a  more  dangerous 
experiment  than  to  place  property  in  the  hands  of  one  class,  and 
political  power  in  those  of  another.  Indeed  such  a  state  of  things 
could  not  long  exist.  We  have  seen  something  like  it  in  the  ancient 
noblesse  of  France,  in  relation  to  whom  the  attempt  seemed  to  be 
to  make  up,  in  positive  power,  or  artificial  distinction,  what  was  wan- 
ting in  the  natural  influence  of  property  and  character.  The  gen- 
erality of  these  personages,  with  all  their  pretensions  to  rank,  and 
all  their  blazoning  of  heraldry,  were  infinitely  inferior  in  respecta- 
bility, and  in  just  influence  in  the  state,  to  hundreds  of  the  untitled 
but  independent  landholders  of  Great  Britain.  It  will  be  disastrous, 
indeed,  for  this  latter  country,  whenever  a  separation  shall  take 
place  between  the  influence,  the  indirect,  but  the  natural  and  salu- 
tary influence  of  property,  and  political  influence,  or  political  power. 
They  would  not,  and  as  we  have  already  observed,  in  the  absence 
of  direct,  military  despotism,  cannot  be  long  separated.  If  one 
changes  hands,  so  will  the  other.  If  the  property  cannot  retain  the 
political  power,  the  political  power  will  draw  after  it  the  property. 
If*  orator  Hunt  and  his  fellow  laborers  should,  by  any  means,  obtain 
more  political  influence  in  the  counties,  towns,  and  boroughs  of 
England,  than  the  Marquis  of  Buckingham,  Lord  Stafford,  Lord 
Fitzwilliam,  and  the  other  noblemen  and  gentlemen  of  great  landed 
estates,  these  estates  would  inevitably  change  hands.  At  least  so 
it  seems  to  us;  and  therefore  when  Sir  Francis  Burdett,  the  Marquis 
of  Tavistock,  and  other  individuals  of  rank  and  fortune,  propose  to 
introduce  into  the  government  annual  parliaments,  and  universal 
suffrage,  we  can  hardly  forbear  inquiring  whether  they  are  ready  to 
agree  that  property  should  be  as  equally  divided  as  political  power; 
and  if  not,  how  they  expect  to  sever  things,  which  to  us  appear  to 
be  intimately  connected. 

These  speculations,  however,  are  beside  our  present  purpose.  We 
mean  only  to  say,  that,  in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  wherever 
the  people  are  not  subject  to  military  rule,  the  government  must 
in  a  great  measure  be  under  the  guidance  of  that  aggregate  of 

TJU 


518 

indirect  but  salutary  influences,  of  which  property  is  an  essential 
ingredient;  along  with  other  ingredients,  doubtless,  of  intelligence, 
public  spirit,  and  high  and  fair  character.  And  that  as  in  this  coun- 
try almost  the  whole  people  partake  of  the  blessings  of  property, 
so  must  they  also  partake  in  the  desire  to  protect  property,  and  of 
course  the  laws  which  furnish  that  protection.  The  evils  and  diffi- 
culties which  exist  among  us,  in  regard  to  insolvency,  belong  to  the 
subject  itself,  and  are  not  confined  to  our  community.  The  highly 
commercial  state  of  the  world  has  elevated  two  subjects  of  legisla- 
tion, in  our  day,  to  a  very  great  degree  of  importance.  One  respects 
the  prevention  and  punishment  of  those  crimes  which  are  committed 
on  property,  such  as  theft,  forgery,  &c.  which  have  increased,  in 
late  times,  far  more  than  the  more  violent  offences,  such  as  murder, 
and  assault,  and  the  other  crimes  which  spring  from  passion,  revenge, 
or  cruelty.  The  other  respects  the  provisions  necessary  to  be  made 
relative  to  insolvents,  and  the  proper  degree  in  which  there  may  be 
a  mitigation,  in  certain  cases,  of  the  ancient  rigor  of  imprisonment 
for  debt.  These  important  subjects  are  full  of  inherent  difficulties. 
None  of  the  ancient  codes  furnish  examples  which  can  be  safely 
followed,  because  such  a  state  of  society  as  exists  now  existed  in 
none  of  the  ancient  states.  The  systems  adopted  among  the  modern 
nations  are  not  yet  satisfactory  to  themselves.  In  France,  we  know 
that  these  subjects  have  lately  attracted  much  consideration.  In 
Holland,  a  revision  of  the  whole  system  is  before  a  commission  ap- 
pointed for  that  purpose.  In  England,  one  of  these  subjects,  the 
reformation  of  the  criminal  code,  is  before  a  committee  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  at  the  head  of  which  is  Sir  James  Macintosh.  The 
bankrupt  laws  are,  or  lately  have  been,  under  investigation  before 
another  committee,  and  the  insolvent  debtor  act  is  receiving  great 
attention  from  some  of  the  principal  men  in  either  House  of  Parlia- 
ment. In  our  own  country,  we  know  that  Congress  has  for  two 
sessions  discussed  a  proposed  system  of  bankruptcy,  and  that  sev- 
eral of  the  state  legislatures  are  desirous*  as  far  as  their  power  ex- 
tends, to  make  just  and  wise  provisions  on  the  subject  of  insolvency, 
in  case  the  power  of  Congress  to  establish  a  bankrupt  system  shall 
not  be  exercised.  Intelligent  men,  we  trust,  will  thus  see,  that  the 
law  of  creditor  and  debtor  in  the  United  States  is  not  such  as  to  cast 
that  imputation  on  the  character  of  our  legislation,  which  Mr.  Bris- 
ted's  book  would  authorise,  and  which  the  Quarterly  Reviewers 
would  confirm  and  circulate.  If  our  code  be  not  perfect,  neither  is 
the  code  of  any  other  nation  perfect;  and  whatever  ignorant  or  pre- 
judiced men  may  write  or  may  believe  about  us,  those  who  have 
sense  and  candor  will  distinguish  between  what  is  inherent  in  a 
difficult  subject,  and  what  is  the  result  of  unskilful  or  dishonest 
legislation. 


519 


LETTER  OF  MR.   WEBSTER, 

ADDRESSED  TO  REV.  LOUIS  DWIGHT,  SECRETARY  OF  TFIE  PRISON  DISCIPLINE 
SOCIETY,  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  IMPRISONMENT  FOR  DEBT. 

Washington,  May  2, 1830. 

Sir, — I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  19th  of  April,  asking  my 
opinion  upon  several  questions,  all  relative  to  the  subject  of  imprison- 
ment for  debt.  I  am  quite  willing  to  express  my  general  opinions  on 
that  interesting  subject,  although  they  are  not  so  matured  as  to  be  en- 
titled to  influence  other  men's  judgments.  The  existing  laws,  I  think, 
call  loudly  for  revision  and  amendment.  Your  first  four  questions 
seek  to  know  what  I  think  of  imprisonment  for  small  sums.  I  am 
decidedly  against  it;  I  would  carry  the  exemption  to  debts  of  thirty 
or  forty  dollars,  at  least.  Individual  instances  of  evil  or  hardship 
might,  I  am  aware,  follow  from  such  a  change;  but  I  am  persuaded 
the  general  result  would  be  favorable,  in  a  high  degree,  to  industry, 
sobriety,  and  good  morals,  as  well  as  to  personal  liberty./ 

You  ask,  in  the  next  place,  what  I  think  of  imprisonment  for  debt 
in  any  case  where  there  is  no  evidence  of  fraud.  Certainly  I  am 
of  opinion  that  there  should  be  no  imprisonment  for  debt,  where  it 
appears  that  no  fraud  has  been  practised,  or  intended,  either  in  con- 
tracting the  debt  or  in  omitting  to  pay  it.  But,  then,  it  seems  to  me, 
that,  when  a  man  does  not  fulfil  a  lawful  promise,  he  ought  to  show 
his  inability,  and  to  show  also  that  his  own  conduct  has  been  fair 
and  honest.  He  ought  not  to  be  allowed  merely  to  say  he  cannot 
pay,  and  then  to  call  on  the  creditor  to  prove  that  his  inability  is 
pretended  or  fraudulent.  He  ought  to  show  why  he  does  not  and 
cannot  fulfil  his  contract,  and  to  give  reasonable  evidence  that  he 
has  not  acted  fraudulently;  and,  this  being  done,  his  person  ought 
to  be  held  no  longer.  In  the  first  place,  the  creditor  is  entitled  to 
the  oath  of  his  debtor,  and,  in  the  next  place,  to  satisfactory  expla- 
nation of  any  suspicious  circumstances. 

There  are  two  sorts  of  fraud,  either  of  which,  when  proved,  ought 
to  prevent  a  liberation  of  the  person,  viz:  fraud  in  contracting  the 
debt,  and  fraud  in  concealing,  or  making  way  with,  the  means  of 
payment.  And  the  usual  provisions  of  the  bankrupt  act  ought  to 
be  added,  that  no  one  should  be  discharged,  who  is  proved  to  have 
lost  money  in  any  species  of  gaming;  and  I  should  include,  in  this 
class,  all  adventurers  in  lotteries.  Having  tendered  his  own  oath,  and 
made  just  explanation  of  any  circumstances  of  suspicion,  if  there  be 
such,  and  not  having  lost  money  by  gaming,  the  debtor  ought  to  be 
discharged  at  once;  which  answers  another  of  your  questions;  for 
the  detention  of  thirty  days,  before  the  oath  can  be  taken,  appears 
to  me  wholly  useless. 

You  are  pleased  to  ask  whether,  in  my  judgment,  Christians  can, 
with  a  good  conscience,  imprison,  either  other  Christians,  or  infidels. 
He  would  be  very  little  of  a  Christian,  I  think,  who  should  make  a 
difference,  in  such  a  case,  and  be  willing  to  use  a  degree  of  severity 
towards  Jew  or  Greek,  which  he  would  not  use  towards  one  of  his 
own  faith.     Whether  conscientious  men  can  imprison  anybody  for 


520 

debt,  whom  they  do  not  believe  dishonest  or  fraudulent,  is  a  question 
which  every  man,  while  the  law  allows  such  imprisonment,  must  de- 
cide for  himself.  In  answer  to  your  inquiry,  whether  I  have  found 
it  necessary  to  use  such  coercion,  in  regard  to  debts  of  my  own,  I 
have  to  say,  that  I  never  imprisoned  any  man  for  my  own  debt,  un- 
der any  circumstances;  nor  have  I,  in  five  and  twenty  years'  pro- 
fessional practice,  ever  recommended  it  to  others,  except  in  cases 
where  there  was  manifest  proof,  or  violent  and  unexplained  suspicion, 
of  intentional  fraud. 

Imprisonment  for  debt,  my  dear  sir,  as  it  is  now  practised,  is,  in 
my  judgment,  a  great  evil;  and,  it  seems  to  me,  an  effectual  remedy 
for  the  larger  part  of  the  evil  is  obvious.  Nineteen  twentieths  of 
the  whole  of  it  would  be  relieved,  in  my  opinion,  if  imprisonment 
for  small  debts  were  to  be  abolished.  That  object  I  believe  to  be 
attainable;  and  to  its  attainment,  I  think,  the  main  attention  of  those 
who  take  an  interest  in  the  subject  should  be  directed.  Small  cred- 
its are  often  given,  on  the  confidence  of  being  able  to  collect  the 
debt  by  the  terrors  of  the  jail;  great  ones,  seldom  or  never. 

Three  simple  provisions  would  accomplish  all,  in  my  opinion,  that 
may  be  considered  as  absolutely  required  to  a  just  state  of  the  law, 
respecting  imprisonment  for  debt  in  Massachusetts. 

1.  That  no  imprisonment  should  be  allowed,  when  the  debts,  ex- 
clusive of  costs,  did  not  amount  to  $  30. 

2.  That  there  should  be  no  necessity  of  imprisonment  for  thirty 
days,  as  preliminary  to  taking  the  poor  debtor's  oath;  nor  any  longer 
detention  than  such  as  is  necessary  to  give  parties  notice,  and  time 
to  prepare  for  examination;  and  that  a  convenient  number  of  mag- 
istrates, in  every  county,  should,  for  the  purpose  of  administering 
the  oaths,  be  appointed  by  the  government;  and  that  such  magis- 
trates should  be  clothed  with  such  further  powers  as  might  be  thought 
expedient,  in  order  to  enable  them  to  make  a  thorough  investiga- 
tion of  the  fairness  or  fraud  of  the  debtor's  conduct. 

3.  That  in  cases  where  the  debtor  had  been  discharged,  if  the 
creditor  would  make  oath  to  newly  discovered  evidence,  proving 
original  fraud,  or,  to  his  belief,  that  the  debtor  had  subsequently 
received  property,  and  concealed  or  withheld  the  same  from  his  credi- 
tors, it  should  be  competent  to  such  creditor  to  have  investigation  of 
such  charge,  and,  if  made  out,  to  have  execution  against  the  person, 
and  if  not  made  out,  that  the  creditor  should  pay  the  cost  of  the 
proceeding. 

Other  provisions  might  doubtless  be  useful;  but  if  these  three 
alone  could  be  obtained,  they  would,  in  a  great  measure,  clear  the 
jails  of  debtors,  and  give  general  satisfaction,  I  have  no  doubt,  to 
creditors. 

I  ought  to  add  that  the  imprisonment  of  females  in  the  common 
jails,  for  mere  debt,  is  a  barbarism  which  ought  not  to  be  tolerated. 
Instances  of  such  imprisonment,  though  rare,  do  yet  sometimes  oc- 
cur, under  circumstances  that  shock  every  humane  mind.  In  this 
respect,  the  law  ought,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  altogether  reformed. 


r^>  OF  THE     X4^ 

:Ujri7EESITY] 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


FEB    flSfifr 


V 


a-i^v 


rM 


^ 


W7"f 


"t'-Hk 


m 


<m« 


